This is my response to your question Casparov.
QuoteI am asking for proof. The sentence you have written is, "I have given you proof," which I cannot accept as proof. You neglect to reference this alleged "proof". You neglect to even hint at what this alleged "proof" may have been. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have proof in support of Materialism then provide it please. I am begging you!
You are not begging me, you simply refuse to answer me. You have failed to address anything I have said so far and just pretend it was never said. You want me to repeat myself, so here it goes… step by step. And keep in mind all of this has been presented to you before.
I'll only deal with one step at a time.
1) I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)
This is an assumption. If you agree this is an assumption then you now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov? You know the outcome. You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance. He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason. Nothing constructive will come of it.
^^^This. Casparov has shown nothing else than intellectual dishonesty, in the same fashion as the other religious fundies we use to get here. The fact that he abandoned the debate he himself asked for speaks volumes about him. A waste of good oxygen.
Quote from: SGOS on May 20, 2014, 04:47:00 AM
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov? You know the outcome. You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance. He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason. Nothing constructive will come of it.
You're right but I want to try anyway.
Quote from: SGOS on May 20, 2014, 04:47:00 AM
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov? You know the outcome. You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance. He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason. Nothing constructive will come of it.
^ yeah. Pseudo intellectual quantum gish gallop ftw!
Quote from: SGOS on May 20, 2014, 04:47:00 AM
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov? You know the outcome. You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance. He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason. Nothing constructive will come of it.
This is pretty much why I only engage him with my copypasta "proof of no gods" post. I know it's annoying. That's the point.
I like to educate people is why I do, but when it goes in one ear and out the other it is frustrating. I like the challenge, and it makes me put my thinking cap on so I don't get stupid. :doh: Besides it is funny listening to their use of Slick Maneuvers. :wink: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 20, 2014, 12:08:10 PM
I like to educate people is why I do, but when it goes in one ear and out the other it is frustrating. I like the challenge, and it makes me put my thinking cap on so I don't get stupid. :doh: Besides it is funny listening to their use of Slick Maneuvers. :wink: Solitary
I agree and since this thread was started as my personal response to Casparov I was hoping to avoid others pilling onto his responses.
Not that I mind input from others but I have my own plan and I would prefer not to get sidetracked.
Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
I agree and since this thread was started as my personal response to Casparov I was hoping to avoid others pilling onto his responses.
Not that I mind input from others but I have my own plan and I would prefer not to get sidetracked.
Why don't you just request a one-on-one debate?
:jook:
(sorry, coundn't resist)
Also: Casparovs line of reasoning basically comes down to solipsism. And in solipsism no thing needs a - known - cause. Everything goes. It's a total cop out and completely useless. I don't understand why people give this shit so much time. A one-on-one debate for an issue that can be settled in one sentence? Follow up threads on this shit? Really?
Quote from: Bibliofagus on May 20, 2014, 12:35:14 PM
Why don't you just request a one-on-one debate?
:jook:
(sorry, coundn't resist)
Also: Casparovs line of reasoning basically comes down to solipsism. And in solipsism no thing needs a - known - cause. Everything goes. It's a total cop out and completely useless. I don't understand why people give this shit so much time. A one-on-one debate for an issue that can be settled in one sentence? Follow up threads on this shit? Really?
Sure, why can't the debate happen right here?
As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you, and yet Casparov cannot see it himself... and others (myself included) have still managed to get sidetracked into debates about scientific experiments which in the end have nothing to do with Casparovs beliefs.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 20, 2014, 05:25:22 AM
^^^This. Casparov has shown nothing else than intellectual dishonesty, in the same fashion as the other religious fundies we use to get here. The fact that he abandoned the debate he himself asked for speaks volumes about him. A waste of good oxygen.
I see that he has abandoned the formal debate so I doubt I'll ever get a reply.
Of course, you are all correct in that it is a fruitless debate since Casparovs belief is purely faith based. I still like discussions with these types for the same reason a cat will use a dead unmoving post to sharpen its claws.
If there is one thing I can take away from this it's that Ghost for brains did try a crafty way of insisting for proof for a purely philosophical/ non falsifiable position. Many of us did in fact try to provide the proof but we should have instead referred him to the Demarcation Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem)
Quote"The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience,[1] including between science, pseudoscience, other activities, and beliefs."
Of particular annoyance was the total intellectual dishonesty and faking being polite.
"
Oh please dear kind sirs... I only want to be open minded, I beg thee for evidence. " :hang:
I can put up with the irrational arguments, missing the point, misinterpreting Quantum Interpretations for proven facts, etc... but that kind of fake politeness was extremely disgusting to have to tolerate.
Casparov was the most disingenuous person I have ever seen on any forum I have been on. I have never seen so many slick maneuvers from anyone else accept Deepak Chopra. And you are correct his fake sweetness was like eating caramel pancakes with syrup on them. :sick: Solitary
What if Casaprov is Deepak Chopra?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 21, 2014, 01:33:22 PM
What if Casaprov is Deepak Chopra?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g)
Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM
Sure, why can't the debate happen right here?
No problem with me. :popcorn:
Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM
As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you and yet Casparov cannot see it himself...
Do you really believe that?
Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM
and others (myself included) have still managed to get sidetracked into debates about scientific experiments which in the end have nothing to do with Casparovs beliefs.
I'm quite clueless about why that is happening.
This forum used to be - a lot - more unfriendly and impatient towards bullshit like Casparovs'.
^ We started taking care of our chewtoys.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on May 21, 2014, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM
As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you and yet Casparov cannot see it himself...
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.
I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.
I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.
Quote from: Berati on May 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.
I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.
I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.
For the most part I agree. I think Casparov sincerely believes what he presents.
QuoteI believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are.
Don't know about that. But I couldn't give you a good counter argument.
Quote from: Berati on May 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.
I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.
I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.
This is a very clear explanation and interpretation, and I think it's right on. However, I'm still not sure if Casparov believes what he says. I guess it doesn't matter to me if he does. I have lurked in some of his threads, but haven't engaged him much. I find his approach all too familiar. It's the same old believer posting bullshit, and not responding to key questions, except with a more polished command of sentence structure. But it's still the same desperate avoidance of logic carried to the same absurd conclusions.
On the other hand, if he doesn't believe what he says, it's still meaningless bullshit.
Quote from: stromboli on May 21, 2014, 07:37:51 PM
Don't know about that. But I couldn't give you a good counter argument.
I would think many here don't believe in free will... except when it comes to
our choice to be rational. :think:
BTW stromboli, you've been here awhile, how often does free will come up?
In the end, I don't think it matters. No matter how sincere the philosophical arguments, Cas and his ilk still think that the world should work the way they think it should work, instead of examining the world and finding out how it actually works. No matter how one comes up with that notion, it's still colossal arrogance.
Quote from: Berati on May 22, 2014, 12:25:56 AM
how often does free will come up?
Quite a lot, although the issue is never resolved.
Quote from: Berati on May 19, 2014, 05:45:59 PM
This is my response to your question Casparov.
You are not begging me, you simply refuse to answer me. You have failed to address anything I have said so far and just pretend it was never said. You want me to repeat myself, so here it goes… step by step. And keep in mind all of this has been presented to you before.
I'll only deal with one step at a time.
Oh sweet! This could be interesting I suppose. I'm game!
Quote1) I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)
This is an assumption. If you agree this is an assumption then you now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?
DISAGREE!
I refute that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is." I've never said this and this is not my argument.
Better is that I cannot doubt the fact that I am conscious, therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. I do not need to assume that consciousness exists, because I literally cannot doubt it. Something must first be doubtable in order to be assumed.
I am not arguing that just because I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists that therefore "consciousness is all there is". If I did so, yes this would be an assumption, but it is not my argument. You have presented a straw-man at step one.
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM
Oh sweet! This could be interesting I suppose. I'm game!
DISAGREE!
I refute that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is." I've never said this and this is not my argument.
Better is that I cannot doubt the fact that I am conscious, therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. I do not need to assume that consciousness exists, because I literally cannot doubt it. Something must first be doubtable in order to be assumed.
I am not arguing that just because I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists that therefore "consciousness is all there is". If I did so, yes this would be an assumption, but it is not my argument. You have presented a straw-man at step one.
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
Read it again.
I asked you if you thought it was an assumption. Therefore you agree.
Which means that materialsm is therefore at least as likely as immaterialism.
Correct?
*NOTE*
I contacted the mods to look at turning this into a one on one, which is what Berati wanted to begin with.
Quote from: Berati on May 23, 2014, 08:01:01 AM
Read it again.
I asked you if you thought it was an assumption. Therefore you agree.
Which means that materialsm is therefore at least as likely as immaterialism.
Correct?
There is no assumption required to know that consciousness exists. However, to claim that the only thing that exists is consciousness would indeed be an assumption. You seem to have relabeled Idealism as Immaterialism, which is fine. Materialism and Immaterialism are indeed both assumptions, this does not however mean that they are equally as likely. If one assumption explains the data more accurately than an another assumption, then it is a more likely assumption than the other one.
I am absolutely certain that consciousness and experience exist, these are two immaterial things. I am not certain that any objective material objects actually exist, therefore at the very beginning of consideration, immaterialism is more likely than materialism. I am certain that consciousness exists before any assumptions are even considered, assuming Materialism posits something extra without justification whereas assuming immaterialism merely extrapolates the knowledge I already have.
Just because they are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. So I disagree. You are incorrect.
You assume that consciousness can exist without a material cause, which has been shown to not be true by neurology. Solitary
Quote from: Berati on May 22, 2014, 12:25:56 AM
I would think many here don't believe in free will... except when it comes to our choice to be rational. :think:
BTW stromboli, you've been here awhile, how often does free will come up?
About every other month, maybe more often than that.
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 03:30:59 PM
There is no assumption required to know that consciousness exists. However, to claim that the only thing that exists is consciousness would indeed be an assumption.
You seem to have relabeled Idealism as Immaterialism, which is fine. Materialism and Immaterialism are indeed both assumptions
,
So we do agree! Good, because I will remind you of this in about two seconds.
Quotethis does not however mean that they are equally as likely. If one assumption explains the data more accurately than an another assumption, then it is a more likely assumption than the other one.
You are getting ahead of yourself. We are still only on step one; we have not discussed any evidence or experiments at this point. You are already jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Please take this one step at a time as I requested.
QuoteI am absolutely certain that consciousness and experience exist, these are two immaterial things. I am not certain that any objective material objects actually exist, therefore at the very beginning of consideration, immaterialism is more likely than materialism.
You are assuming immaterialism again. You just agreed not to do this!
We have not yet introduced any evidence showing that consciousness is either immaterial or if it’s tied to a material brain. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that you are trying to prove and you agreed not to make these assumptions.
QuoteI am certain that consciousness exists before any assumptions are even considered, assuming Materialism posits something extra without justification whereas assuming immaterialism merely extrapolates the knowledge I already have.
Just because they are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. So I disagree. You are incorrect.
You have just contradicted yourself as you already agreed that the sentence below is an assumption:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is
If you modify it to
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is…is more likely.
Then you are guilty of making the same assumption as before. i.e. prior to any evidence you are assuming you know where consciousness has come from. The "is more likely" modifier doesn't change it from being an assumption at all, in fact it certifies it and
you have already agreed that this is incorrect.Whether consciousness just exists or whether it comes from a material brain is
what we are trying to prove… you can’t just assume you know the answer…
AND YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO THIS.
Surely you can see your error here. Correct?
After, I think therefore I am… we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know
that we are conscious, not
how we are conscious
If you cannot comprehend why
we cannot jump to conclusions about the origin of consciousness just because we are conscious, then I will start over at step one again until you get this concept because it is the source of your first mistake.
So if I phrase it like this:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is, is more likely.
This is an assumption, (same as it was the first time around)
Do you agree that even if I phrase it as above… it is still an assumption?
And PLEASE keep your responses brief. I’m covering as little ground as possible here to keep you on track and there is no need to go galloping off ahead of the conversation. One step at a time! Deal only with what comes after "I think therefore I am"
Quote from: stromboli on May 23, 2014, 07:02:06 PM
About every other month, maybe more often than that.
Thats what I thought. It seems to be the burning question in modern philosophy.
Quote from: stromboli on May 23, 2014, 12:55:59 PM
*NOTE*
I contacted the mods to look at turning this into a one on one, which is what Berati wanted to begin with.
Berati and Casparov, if you want this to be moved to the one-on-one section, just let us know and it will be done.
Quote from: Berati on May 23, 2014, 11:50:39 PM
You have just contradicted yourself as you already agreed that the sentence below is an assumption:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is
^^ this is not my argument though. I am not saying, "I think therefore I am, therefore, thought is all there is." At best "i think therefore I am" can only lead me to the conclusion that "consciousness definitely exists." I do not use "I think therefore I am" to conclude that "thought is all there is."
QuoteIf you modify it to
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is…is more likely.
I am not doing that though. "I think therefore I am" only grants me a foundation on which to build a world view. It does not lead to any conclusions. I think therefore I am = I am. That is all it does. Two things can follow from "I think therefore I am":
1) I am.
2) Mind/consciousness/awareness/experience definitely exists.
That's it. If you are insisting that I claim anything more from "I think therefore I am" you are straw-manning my argument.
QuoteThen you are guilty of making the same assumption as before. i.e. prior to any evidence you are assuming you know where consciousness has come from.
I don't say that I know where consciousness comes from, I just know that consciousness definitely exists. My saying that consciousness is immaterial has nothing to do with where consciousness comes from, it only has to do with the nature of consciousness. I do not have to assert anything about where consciousness comes from in order to determine if consciousness itself is material or immaterial.
Material/Matter ;
denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit ; physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like ; something which occupies space and has measurable mass and location.Immaterial ;
The opposite of matter, material, materialism, or materialistic ; not consisting of matter ; incorporeal ; taking up no space and having no measurable mass or location.Because I know the difference between something that is material and something that is immaterial, I can safely conclude that consciousness itself is immaterial without ever having to even speak about where consciousness might come from yet. I am not asserting anything about where consciousness comes from, I am simply noting that I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists, and consciousness itself is immaterial. That is all.
QuoteSurely you can see your error here. Correct?
After, I think therefore I am… we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that we are conscious, not how we are conscious
Yes. After "I think therefore I am" we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that we are conscious, not how we are conscious. I agree but we can examine consciousness against the definitions of material and immaterial and safely conclude that consciousness itself is immaterial without having to assert any origin of consciousness. Even if it turns out that consciousness is an epiphenomenon produced by material interactions in a material brain, consciousness itself is still immaterial. Consciousness takes up no space, has no mass, and no location. Much like a thought or an idea or mathematics, consciousness is not a material object regardless of it's origin.
QuoteIf you cannot comprehend why we cannot jump to conclusions about the origin of consciousness just because we are conscious, then I will start over at step one again until you get this concept because it is the source of your first mistake.
I never jumped to any conclusions about the origin of consciousness. Consciousness definitely exists, and it is immaterial. Those are the only two conclusions I have arrived at thus far. Neither is related to any conclusion about the origin of consciousness.
QuoteSo if I phrase it like this:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is, is more likely.
This is an assumption, (same as it was the first time around)
Do you agree that even if I phrase it as above… it is still an assumption?
Berati, this phrase of yours is a definite assumption,
but it is not one I am making. "I think therefore I am" does not logically lead me to the conclusion, "I think therefore thought is all that there is." "I think therefore I am" only leads to the conclusion that "consciousness definitely exists."
QuoteAnd PLEASE keep your responses brief. I’m covering as little ground as possible here to keep you on track and there is no need to go galloping off ahead of the conversation. One step at a time! Deal only with what comes after "I think therefore I am"
My pleasure.
1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 24, 2014, 01:30:09 AM
Berati and Casparov, if you want this to be moved to the one-on-one section, just let us know and it will be done.
The Mods' will be done, on Earth as it is in the Ivory Tower.
Just got back from the cottage and headed out for the evening. I'm be back.
This is what you agreed to.
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
This is the only correct thing you have said. I will now use this as my signature.
I think therefore I am only means that you cannot doubt your own existence
You CANNOT DRAW A SECOND CONCLUSION FROM THIS! You cannot ASSUME consciousness is immaterial from this. You cannot assume:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial.
The reason is because, as YOU HAVE SAID,
“it can take me no further than that.â€So you’re not going to take it further than that are you?
Quote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
Quote
1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?
Oh, I guess you will contradict yourself again.
Look, part two is unproven, it’s where we are trying to “go from here†but only if you first accept that your belief is not just to be assumed.
You have to accept that you will have to prove your part just as I will have to prove my part. You do not get to insert your belief as the default position.
First, YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS!
Second, why would I bother with any further discussion if you just wanted to assume your belief is self evident and that you don’t have to bother with the whole nasty business of having to prove what you believe?
So, we cannot proceed passed step one if you do not understand this.
From the beginning:
1) I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)
We BOTH agree this is an assumption and we BOTH agree that:
“"I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.†Your own words!
You now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?
Quote from: Berati on May 25, 2014, 11:07:08 PM
I think therefore I am only means that you cannot doubt your own existence
You CANNOT DRAW A SECOND CONCLUSION FROM THIS! You cannot ASSUME consciousness is immaterial from this. You cannot assume:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial.
"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to the conclusion that consciousness immaterial... the definitions of immaterial and material lead me to the conclusion that consciousness is immaterial...
QuoteThe reason is because, as YOU HAVE SAID, “it can take me no further than that.â€
So you’re not going to take it further than that are you?
Oh, I guess you will contradict yourself again.
"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, it only leads me to conclude that consciousness exists. So I have something which I know exists, I cannot doubt that it exists, and it is called "consciousness." Now I can ask questions about this "consciousness". Does it fit the definition of a material object? Does it fit the definition of being immaterial? Well, the word "Mind" is in the very
definition of "immaterial". This "consciousness," which I know exists, fits the definition of immaterial 100%, and is even used as an example of the exact opposite of something which fits the definition of a material object. Therefore, when searching for a label which best describes the nature of this "consciousness," which I know exists, I have chosen the label, "immaterial." because it fits the definition 100%. ( not because I think therefore I am)
It is not "i think therefore I am" which has lead me to conclude that consciousness is immaterial, "i think therefore I am" has only lead me to conclude that consciousness definitely exists, it is the definition of immaterial and material which has lead me to conclude that consciousness can best be described as immaterial, rather than material.
For you to insist that I am using "i think therefore I am" to conclude that consciousness is immaterial is a false accusation. But it's okay, I'm used to it at this point.
QuoteLook, part two is unproven, it’s where we are trying to “go from here†but only if you first accept that your belief is not just to be assumed.
You have to accept that you will have to prove your part just as I will have to prove my part. You do not get to insert your belief as the default position.
Consciousness has no mass, no definite location, is incorporeal, unmeasurable, and occupies no space; therefore consciousness fits the definition of immaterial and does not fit the definition of material.
Do you disagree?QuoteFirst, YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS!
Second, why would I bother with any further discussion if you just wanted to assume your belief is self evident and that you don’t have to bother with the whole nasty business of having to prove what you believe?
So, we cannot proceed passed step one if you do not understand this.
From the beginning:
1) I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)
We BOTH agree this is an assumption and we BOTH agree that:
“"I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.†Your own words!
You now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?
Berati, let's get something straight before we go any further:
I think therefore I am ≠I think therefore thought is all that there is!!!!!!!You have built a straw-man. You are misrepresenting my argument. I do not believe that, "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all there is." We will not be able to move forward until you stop strawmanning my argument.
Further, I do not hold to "immaterialism" as you are suggesting. You are assigning me arguments and positions and labels that I do not not actually subscribe to and then arguing against them. If you want to have a discussion with me, at least have the courtesy to let me choose my own position and arguments!
1) I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is better described as "immaterial" than "material" per the definitions of both.
Beyond this: there are a plethora of arguments, assertions, positive claims, bare assumptions, etc. that can be made about the nature of reality I am conscious of. I can evaluate all of these options and come to an informed decision about which is the most likely via evidence and observation in all of it's various forms.
You seem to be suggesting that all of these possibilities are
equally as likely, but this does not follow. Some explain the data better than others, some fit the evidence better than others, some are just outright ridiculous assertions,
they are not all equally as likely. So I disagree.
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 12:25:21 AM
Berati, let's get something straight before we go any further:
I think therefore I am ≠I think therefore thought is all that there is!!!!!!!
You have built a straw-man. You are misrepresenting my argument. I do not believe that, "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all there is." We will not be able to move forward until you stop strawmanning my argument.
LOL How is it a strawman argument… IF WE BOTH AGREE TO IT!
For it to be a strawman argument, you would have to DISAGREE, but you don’t. It is the only area of agreement so far.
What I am doing is holding you to a position that we both agree to. If you later contradict yourself (which you do immediately) I will point this out.
This is not a strawman argument, You have merely been trapped with your own words.
For example:
We are discussing “I think therefore I am†and this leads you to conclude.
Quote1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten.
Will you admit this is an error?
Quote"I think therefore I am" does not lead me to the conclusion that consciousness immaterial...
And yet you draw two conclusions from the very first step!
QuoteNow I can ask questions about this "consciousness".
That would be step two if you can get past step one. Why ask any
further questions if you have already reached your conclusion?
I will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I amâ€
Without this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness because you are already setting immaterialsim as the default position before any questions have been asked.
Quote from: Berati on May 26, 2014, 08:47:58 AM
LOL How is it a strawman argument… IF WE BOTH AGREE TO IT!
For it to be a strawman argument, you would have to DISAGREE, but you don’t. It is the only area of agreement so far.
What I am doing is holding you to a position that we both agree to. If you later contradict yourself (which you do immediately) I will point this out.
This is not a strawman argument, You have merely been trapped with your own words.
I think therefore I am = only apples exist.^^^ Is an assumption. We both agree that this would be an assumption yes? Why not hold me to this argument then? It is not one I hold to, yet I agree that it would be an assumption. You holding me to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists" is just like holding me to "I think therefore I am = only apples exist." I don't agree with either statement, but I agree that both are assumptions.
You are attempting to get me to accept an argument that I do not hold to, and the reasoning you offer behind it is that I agree that the argument you are holding me to is an assumption.
You could easily have said instead:
"I think therefore I am = I think therefore the spaghetti monster is all that exists" Is an assumption, do you agree or disagree?
If I said, "umm... yeah that would be an assumption..." then you could have replied "Ha! Then you agree that materialism is just as likely as the spaghetti monster existing because you agree that both are assumptions! And this is not a strawman argument because you would have to disagree with something before it could be a strawman and you agree the spaghetti monster is all that exists is an assumption!"
To which I would simply reply: "I agree that it is an assumption, but it is not one that I am making."
Do you understand now?
QuoteFor example:
Will you admit this is an error?
And yet you draw two conclusions from the very first step! That would be step two if you can get past step one. Why ask any further questions if you have already reached your conclusion?
If I know something exists, I can ask questions and apply labels and definitions to it without making any assumptions. How do I know it is called "consciousness"? Because I have learned the definition of "consciousness" and applied this label to that which I know exists. The same is for "immaterial", i know the definition, and the label fits. There are no claims being made, no assumptions or assertions, only the application of applicable labels with appropriate definitions.
QuoteI will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I amâ€
You will need to provide a reason to. Is Materialism equally as likely as "only the spaghetti monster exists" after "I think therefore I am"? Is Materialism equally as likely as "only apples exist" after I think therefore I am?" You seem to be suggesting that all assumptions are equal and all positive claims are equally as likely but this is simply not true. I am not going to agree with this unless you can give reason to do so. Some assumptions are more likely than others, they are not all equal.
Your argument so far is putting your world view on equal ground as every wild assumption possible. You are putting your world view as equally likely an explanation of reality as "only the spaghetti monster unicorn princess exists". Are you saying that Materialism is equally as likely as any wild assumption that can be made after "I think therefore I am"?
Quote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
My pleasure.
1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?
How can the allegedly immaterial consciousness interact with the material body?
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 26, 2014, 07:09:24 PM
How can the allegedly immaterial consciousness interact with the material body?
You are suggesting Substance Dualism and referring to what is known as the Interaction Problem. You suggest that immaterial consciousness is one substance and material body is another substance, and the logical problem is the interaction between the two substances. I have found no resolution to the Interaction Problem of Dualism, and this is why I reject this theory outright and why I am not a Substance Dualist.
The other explanations are Monisms, which say that there is truly only
one substance. Monistic Materialism states that there is only material, and Monistic Idealism states that there is only immaterial. Materialism states that the material body is the true reality and the immaterial consciousness is an illusion created by material interactions in the material brain. Idealism states that the immaterial consciousness is the true reality and the perceived material physicality is an illusion created by the immaterial consciousness. (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf))
I believe that Monistic explanations are therefore more likely than Dualistic theories because of the Interaction Problem you have referred to.
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Idealism states that the immaterial consciousness is the true reality and the perceived material physicality is an illusion created by the immaterial consciousness.
Shit. You're even stupider than a substance dualist.
Well, then. If this material existence is just an illusion, stop eating. You're wasting our food and wasting your immaterial time.
Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:01:21 PM
I think therefore I am = only apples exist.
^^^ Is an assumption. We both agree that this would be an assumption yes? Why not hold me to this argument then?
Duh... I
'm not holding you to that argument!! I'm holding you to the fact that
WE BOTH AGREE IT'S INVALID. The only valid conclusion is:
I think therefore I am = I cannot doubt my own existence.
That's it... nothing more and you agree!!!
Read your OWN QUOTE.
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
QuoteIt is not one I hold to, yet I agree that it would be an assumption. You holding me to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists" is just like holding me to "I think therefore I am = only apples exist." I don't agree with either statement, but I agree that both are assumptions.
I honestly thought you were more intelligent than this.
I'm
NOT holding you to "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that exists"
I
AM holding you to the fact we both agree it's an assumption.
If you agree it’s an assumption then you cannot conclude that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.
QuoteQuote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
My pleasure.
1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?
See number two?
Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
That is an error, and
you agreed it is an error, and you contradicted yourself anyway which is another error.
Here is the real problem: I gave you too much credit.
You can’t figure out what a strawman argument is or isn’t. Seriously?
You contradict yourself moments after making a definitive statement??
Like every theist I have ever met… you insist that you’re your belief be given special privilege.
All I ask is that you admit that we begin the discussion on equal terms and you just can’t bring yourself to do it.
You must give your immaterialist belief a special place just by virtue of our existence even though you admit that I think therefore I am “can take me no further than thatâ€
As I said,
I will not entertain any questions until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I amâ€
Without this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness and whether it is immaterial or an emergent phenomena of material properties because you are already setting immaterialism as the default position before any questions have been asked.
Quote from: Berati on May 27, 2014, 12:20:18 AM
If you agree it’s an assumption then you cannot conclude that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.
See number two? Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
No. I think therefore I am = consciousness exists. That's as far as "i think therefore I am" will take me. "i think therefore I am" stops there. That does not mean i cannot ask any questions and apply any labels to "consciousness" to describe what it is. The word "consciousness" itself is a label which I have applied based on the definition being applicable to the phenomenon. We are allowed to ask questions and apply labels to better define what we are talking about. Is "consciousness" an apple? No. I don't have to make any assumptions that consciousness is not an apple because I know the definition of "an apple" and I know that "consciousness" does not fit the description. I am not saying "i think therefore I am = Consciousness is not a apple". All I know from "i think therefore I am" is that consciousness exists, I do not need to make any assumptions or positive assertions or use "i think therefore I am" to conclude that consciousness is not an apple.
In the same way, I can say that consciousness is not a material object. Not because "i think therefore I am" leads me logically to such a conclusion, but because the definition of a material object in no way describes "consciousness."
QuoteAll I ask is that you admit that we begin the discussion on equal terms and you just can’t bring yourself to do it.
You must give your immaterialist belief a special place just by virtue of our existence even though you admit that I think therefore I am “can take me no further than thatâ€
You have given me no reason other than materialism is an assumption just like "I think therefore thought is all that exists" would be, but I am not and have never made that argument, and just because two things are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. I have no reason to accept what you want me to accept. All assumptions are not equally as likely, therefore your logic is flawed, I am not going to agree to what you are saying unless you can give a coherent reason why I should.
I reject the notion that all assumptions are equally as likely. If this is the basis of your argument then it is flawed. All assumptions are not equally as likely.
Glad to see you are still here Casparov.
QuoteIn the same way, I can say that consciousness is not a material object.
This is true, however it has a physical cause---a body with a brain that is functioning and not unconscious. There are many things that are mental constructs which are just that, and not objectively real. I agree completely with you that the mind body problem is a black and white fallacy. However, it is more reasonable for the body to exist and the mind a result of a brain, rather than the body is the result of a mind---even a God. Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 01:12:47 AM
No. I think therefore I am = consciousness exists. That's as far as "i think therefore I am" will take me. "i think therefore I am" stops there.
I have shown you your contradiction several times. I can't can't show it yo you any more clearly.
QuoteQuote from: Casparov on May 24, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
My pleasure.
1) Consciousness exists.
2) Consciousness is immaterial.
This is as far as I have gotten. Where do we go from here?
See number two? Do you see it? That is you going directly from "I think therefore I am" To "I think therefore consciousness is immaterial"
QuoteI reject the notion that all assumptions are equally as likely. If this is the basis of your argument then it is flawed. All assumptions are not equally as likely.
Now this is a straw man.
I'll I have said (repeatedly) is that proof of existence is not proof of the immaterial.
So far all we have proven is that we exist.... that's it. That's step one. Any other assumptions following this will require OTHER evidence since step one
"can take me no further"You agree to step one... but then immediately contradict yourself and try to take it further.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
noun PSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
I am not taking it any further. Consciousness exists. That's as far as I go. Just because I describe what consciousness is, does not take it any further. Consciousness is still all I know exists. I haven't gone any further.
I have something which I know exists and I can describe it. Consciousness is immaterial, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is not a material object, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is not an apple, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is incorporeal, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness has no mass and occupies no space, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further.
I have something which I know exists, and I can describe it. You seem to be accusing me of claiming that something beyond consciousness exists or making a further positive assertion or positive claim, but I am not doing that. The only thing I know is that consciousness exists, and I can describe "consciousness" and it's qualities based on my knowledge of it's existence without going a step further.
I agree consciousness exists and is real, but that means we are a mind that requires a physical body functioning properly. If the mind was separate from the physical world, drugs would not effect it. It has ties into the physical universe---in other words consciousness exist, and so does a physical body together, not separate from each other. We are a conscious physical body that has a brain that creates, things that exist in imaginary places, or even in reality. But it can also become too real for some people and become faith in magic with absolute knowledge, when all they have is ignorance. The mind is not real, it is a very persistent illusion when we are conscious. It's not real objectively, only subjectively, but conscious is real objectively, and subjectively both, but only in pairs does the subjective exist because it requires the physical world to exist. Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 06:52:51 PM
I am not taking it any further. Consciousness exists. That's as far as I go. Just because I describe what consciousness is, does not take it any further.
Yes it does!
Describing it
IS taking it a step further. It's the description we disagree about.. not it's existence. Agreeing on it's existence is step one (I think therefore I am),
nothing else. So after "I think therefore I am" all theories start on the same foot because zero evidence has been provided about the description.
YOUR description is what I am accusing you of assuming at this point because "I think therefore I am" provides no evidence about the description of consciousness. None! Zero! Zilch!
It proves existence but says nothing about the nature of existence because:
QuoteQuote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
At this point you must admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism since no evidence has been put forward concerning
YOUR description.
QuoteI have something which I know exists, and I can describe it.
See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description.
QuoteYou seem to be accusing me of claiming that something beyond consciousness exists or making a further positive assertion or positive claim, but I am not doing that. The only thing I know is that consciousness exists, and I can describe "consciousness" and it's qualities
You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits
and you have already agreed to this!Quotebased on my knowledge of it's existence without going a step further.
Wrong again. You are assigning all sorts of descriptions and qualities to consciousness based on the fact that it exists... not on any evidence. "I think thereore I am" provides NO evidence about descriptions or qualities.
As I keep repeating:
I will not entertain any questions concerning the "qualities" of consciousness until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I amâ€
There would be no point to this since you have already reached your conclusion that consciousness is immaterial prior to any discussion about any evidence.
So here is your only option.
Admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialismWithout this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness and whether it is immaterial or an emergent phenomena of material properties because you are already setting immaterialism as the default position before any evidence has been put forward.
Quote from: Berati on May 28, 2014, 01:35:18 PM
Yes it does!
Describing it IS taking it a step further. It's the description we disagree about.. not it's existence. Agreeing on it's existence is step one (I think therefore I am), nothing else.
I'm confused, you say we agree on "it's" existence, but maybe we are talking about two different things. To clarify,
can you please describe what it is that we agree exists?QuoteAdmit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism
Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Dualism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Fying Spaghetti Monsterism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as only apples existing?
You are suggesting that all assumptions are equally as likely. I refute this premise. I will not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism unless you can explain why I should accept the premise that all assumptions are equally as likely.
Do you admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism?I don't. I think that one is much more likely than the other, even though they are both assumptions. So I disagree with you.
Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 07:22:25 PM
I'm confused, you say we agree on "it's" existence, but maybe we are talking about two different things. To clarify, can you please describe what it is that we agree exists?
"It" is the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood. That's where we start.
Or, I could simply insert my own description like you attempt to do and declare it the more valid definition
"Consciousness is an emergent phenomena which is the result of material properties and interactions."
Which would you rather go with?
Would you be ok with me simply assuming my definition is the correct one or would you rather I prove it.
Let's say you would prefer I prove it... SAME GOES FOR YOU.
QuoteWhy not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Dualism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Fying Spaghetti Monsterism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as only apples existing?
I admit that after "I think therefore I am" ALL possibilities are equally as likely as any other
SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN PRESENTED."I think therefore I am" does not prove immaterialism. It does not prove materialism, it does not prove flying spaghetti monsterism.... get it?
QuoteYou are suggesting that all assumptions are equally as likely. I refute this premise. I will not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism unless you can explain why I should accept the premise that all assumptions are equally as likely.
Here is the explanation: No evidence has been presented at this point.
QuoteDo you admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism?
We are proceeding step by step therefore right after "I think therefore I am"...
YES, I admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism or immaterialism or any other idea as no evidence has yet been provided.
QuoteI don't. I think that one is much more likely than the other, even though they are both assumptions. So I disagree with you.
That's because you are biased.
Quote from: Berati on May 28, 2014, 07:48:16 PM
"It" is the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood. That's where we start.
You are describing consciousness! I thought we weren't supposed to do that! You said,
"See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description." and also,
"You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits!"You just
described consciousness as "the ability to experience or to feel and a sense of selfhood," so are you now agreeing that describing consciousness is okay?
QuoteOr, I could simply insert my own description like you attempt to do and declare it the more valid definition
"Consciousness is an emergent phenomena which is the result of material properties and interactions."
Which would you rather go with?
Would you be ok with me simply assuming my definition is the correct one or would you rather I prove it.
Let's say you would prefer I prove it... SAME GOES FOR YOU.
You seem to miss the point. "Consciousness is an emergent phenomena
which is the result of material properties and interactions"
assumes a necessary origin, which goes a step beyond mere description.
If I said similarly, "Consciousness is the immaterial phenomena
which is the result of it's fundamental nature inherent in existence itself." Then I would have gone far beyond mere descriptions and
asserted an origin of consciousness, and you would be right to protest if I did so, but I have not done so. I have merely described consciousness, I have not asserted an necessary origin.
Instead of asserting any origin of consciousness, we can merely describe consciousness. Even if consciousness is truly an "emergent phenomena" consciousness itself is still not material. It may be the result of material objects interacting with each other, but the phenomena of consciousness
itself is still immaterial. We can arrive at this description of consciousness without inferring any origin or moving beyond "consciousness exists." We are only describing consciousness.
Asserting an origin of consciousness is moving a step forward, describing consciousness is not.QuoteI admit that after "I think therefore I am" ALL possibilities are equally as likely as any other SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN PRESENTED.
"I think therefore I am" does not prove immaterialism. It does not prove materialism, it does not prove flying spaghetti monsterism.... get it?
Here is the explanation: No evidence has been presented at this point.
We are proceeding step by step therefore right after "I think therefore I am"...
YES, I admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism or immaterialism or any other idea as no evidence has yet been provided.
That's because you are biased.
Any assertion made without evidence is indeed an assumption, and all assumptions that lack evidence are equally as likely. I can agree to this if you can agree that the starting point is:
1) Consciousness exists.
And
consciousness is described as the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood; a phenomena or ability itself having no mass, occupying no space, no definite location, being incorporeal, and immaterial.
If you disagree with this description of consciousness, are you saying that "the ability to experience" is a material object with a measurable mass and velocity and location that occupies space?
We must be able to agree on a description of consciousness before we can go any further, otherwise we have not truly agreed on what exists. We both know that "the ability to experience and have a sense of selfhood" exists, and I say this is a description of something that can only be described as immaterial. Do you agree? Is "the ability to experience" immaterial?
Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 08:47:15 PM
You are describing consciousness! I thought we weren't supposed to do that! You said, "See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description." and also, "You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits!" Quote
Oh great, now you want to argue semantics. And here I thought we both spoke English.
Be warned. This line of obfuscation will still not allow you to insert your beliefs as the starting point.
All definitions are from Google.
“Iâ€: the person who is speaking or writing
“Thinkâ€: To direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.
“Thereforeâ€: for that reason; consequently.
“I†the person who is speaking or writing
“Amâ€: 1st person singular present of be. “be†: to exist
Oh look, consciousness is not mentioned.
This is how logic works:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
For this discussion A = I think, B = I am
Therefore:
“Iâ€: the person who is speaking or writing,
“Thinkâ€: To direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.
=
“Iâ€: the person who is speaking or writing:
“Amâ€: 1st person singular present of be. “be†: exist
Logical connection B(I am) = C(I exist)
Conclusion A = C (I think) = (I exist)
So there you go. Consciousness is not even mentioned and nothing about it has been proven yet.
But wait, Dun-Dun-Duuuunnn! I just used NEW words in those definitions that we have not defined.
"exist": have objective reality or being.
“direct†control the operations of; manage or govern
“Mindâ€: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences
“Towardâ€: in the direction of.
Etc… ad nauseam
“Ad nauseamâ€: referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.
Annnnnnnddd this is where I’m out.
All I wanted was to begin the discussion on an even paying field but your burning desire to assume your beliefs as the starting point will not allow this to happen. So I’m done with this one sided discussion as you will never admit that your beliefs don’t take priority over everyone else’s.
Quote from: Berati on May 29, 2014, 01:26:29 PM
Annnnnnnddd this is where I’m out.
All I wanted was to begin the discussion on an even paying field but your burning desire to assume your beliefs as the starting point will not allow this to happen. So I’m done with this one sided discussion as you will never admit that your beliefs don’t take priority over everyone else’s.
We agree that the statement "I exist" is the true starting point of any intellectually honest world view. "I exist" is the the true axiom, beyond that there are many assumptions and assertions and arguments that could be made based on evidence and observations etc, but nothing we know can be known more certain than the sentence, "I exist." It is truly the only absolute certainty we can ever have. Therefore, any world view which posits that "i am an illusion" or "I don't exist" such as Materialism which states that only Material objects exist, is instantaneously highly suspect. The evidence in support of such a claim should be scrutinized as hard as any other wild claim.
The point I want to get across is that Materialism is
not an unquestionable self-evident truth that should just be taken as a given. It is only an assumption no different than any other, and bares the full weight of the burden of proof just like any other positive assertion about reality. This is a point that most Atheists never either spend the time to discover, or have the intellectual honesty to admit.
If we can agree on at least this, I consider my goal accomplished. What you do from there with regards to your own personal world view is entirely up to you. But at least you will have solid foundation from which to begin building.
Peace & Love
CASPAROV
That is the problem with your assertions, they have no solid foundations. Objective reality is a fact because it doesn't go away no matter what, but your mind does when you are unconscious. And it is also effected by a hard bump on your head or from psychoactive drugs, even ones produced by your physical body. :wall: Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on May 29, 2014, 11:07:50 PMI consider my goal accomplished.
You dishonest fucking lying piece of shit. You have proved NOTHING, all berati wanted was to start the discussion on even footing and you couldn't even manage that without trying to insert your bullshit in the fucking ground floor BEFORE any evidence is presented. And NOW you have the unmitigated balls to attempt to strut as if you proved a fucking thing, aside from you being a dishonest fucking lying piece of retarded shit?
Don't bother responding to this as I have finally had enough of your stupidity attempting to be dressed up as intelligent discourse. Welcome to ignore retard.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 30, 2014, 10:56:17 AM
You dishonest fucking lying piece of shit. You have proved NOTHING, all berati wanted was to start the discussion on even footing and you couldn't even manage that without trying to insert your bullshit in the fucking ground floor BEFORE any evidence is presented. And NOW you have the unmitigated balls to attempt to strut as if you proved a fucking thing, aside from you being a dishonest fucking lying piece of retarded shit?
Don't bother responding to this as I have finally had enough of your stupidity attempting to be dressed up as intelligent discourse. Welcome to ignore retard.
Join the club. Had enough of this pompous blowhard days ago.
Quote from: Casparov on May 29, 2014, 11:07:50 PM
The point I want to get across is that Materialism is not an unquestionable self-evident truth that should just be taken as a given. It is only an assumption no different than any other, and bares the full weight of the burden of proof just like any other positive assertion about reality. This is a point that most Atheists never either spend the time to discover, or have the intellectual honesty to admit.
How completely dishonest of you! I am the one who was insisting that NO philosophical position be assumed as more likely just because we exist.
I am the one who has asked you repeatedly not to insert
your belief as the unquestionable self-evident truth just to be taken as given.
You, on the other hand only had this to say
Quote"You seem to be suggesting that all of these possibilities are equally as likely, but this does not follow. Some explain the data better than others, some fit the evidence better than others, some are just outright ridiculous assertions, they are not all equally as likely."
And now you have the gall to claim you are the honest one who's only desire was to start the discussion on even ground when it was me who very VERY patiently spent far to many posts showing you why you can't place your belief ahead of everyone else's just because we agree we exist!!
While I actually argued in favor of keeping you here I can no longer stand to have your outright lies and deceptions rubbed in my face.
I will ask the powers that be here to review this last post of yours as it is way beyond the borders of decency and I don't believe this type of ignorant and deceptive behavior should be tolerated.