Page 63 of 64 FirstFirst ... 135361626364 LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 640

Thread: Do you believe in zombies?

  1. #621
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37,668
    Amen (Given)
    3427
    Amen (Received)
    17976
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Um, Sparky, the chemical processes are different. Now, that's a conditional difference but remember Jim isn't a formal materialist - it's his worldview, yes, but not his philosophy per se. I don't think you can get there from here.
    The chemical reactions might stop but the very same molecules and atoms are there. The "animation" stops. Life is the animating force.

  2. #622
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,194
    Amen (Given)
    5520
    Amen (Received)
    4508
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The chemical reactions might stop but the very same molecules and atoms are there. The "animation" stops. Life is the animating force.
    I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

    It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.

  3. #623
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37,668
    Amen (Given)
    3427
    Amen (Received)
    17976
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

    It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.
    I have no idea what you just said.

  4. #624
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,194
    Amen (Given)
    5520
    Amen (Received)
    4508
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I have no idea what you just said.
    Conditions aren't material - formal materialists don't consider them real in and of themselves.

  5. #625
    Caught in the Matrix
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,744
    Amen (Given)
    1018
    Amen (Received)
    1122
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    It does make sense, Jim. This isn't where the analogy fails. Three dimensional beings occupy two additional dimensions - space and time. Space is not violated by the occupation - X amount of material occupying Y amount of space does NOT eliminate the space (removes it from use by other three dimensional objects yes, eliminate, no). Space is still within the material, yet it occupies no location.
    I don't think so Tea. Space does not occupy the material, space is material. Space warps do to the material bodies moving within it, bodies don't eliminate space, but the stretch it. At any rate, space is material, ergo it does occupy location, its just that it is located everywhere. I think you are making the assumption in this analogy that space, like the idea of spirit, is immaterial. Its not.
    If you prefer to think of it as occupying a location, then stick it between atoms - plenty of room, no perceptible difference since the soul is immaterial and doesn't interact as an atom would. Think Shadowcat - it doesn't obey the 'two material objects cannot occupy the same space' rule by cheating and slipping between the atomic space.
    Its not about a preference, its about what is, or what makes sense. Its a contradiction to say that a body has a soul/spirit but that said spirit isn't localized within the body it occupies.
    That's NOT a correct view of the immaterial but your other choices are an a priori assumption of materialism that will not work or a fallacious assumption of the conclusion.
    Well, I do appreciate the attemp Tea, but what I'm really looking for is a correct view.
    FYI: 'Immaterialist' isn't really a thing - I can't think of any other school of thought that can't deal with the immaterial at all - so 'immaterialist' would basically be 'anyone who isn't a materialist'.
    I can deal with anything Tea, so long as it makes sense.
    Last edited by JimL; 01-27-2018 at 12:43 AM.

  6. #626
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,093
    Amen (Given)
    2033
    Amen (Received)
    1397
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    I know - it's a conditional difference but only a formal materialist would have the issue - Jim won't since he accepts conditional reality. The analogy won't work for him.

    It's a blind spot - yes, Jim is definitely a materialist but no, not a formal one - so he can't get past material reality but can accept conditional reality (which a formal materialist wouldn't). He's not just digging in - he really cannot see how the immaterial differs from the material. At least, not yet.
    What substantive evidence do you have that there is a logically coherent alternative to materialism. There isn't to my knowledge.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #627
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,194
    Amen (Given)
    5520
    Amen (Received)
    4508
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I don't think so Tea. Space does not occupy the material, space is material. Space warps do to the material bodies moving within it, bodies don't eliminate space, but the stretch it. At any rate, space is material, ergo it does occupy location, its just that it is located everywhere. I think you are making the assumption in this analogy that space, like the idea of spirit, is immaterial. Its not.
    Think about it - do your lungs occupy space? How, they are inside something (you) occupying space? Mass affects space but doesn't displace it (if it did, space would be like air and it isn't).
    Its not about a preference, its about what is, or what makes sense. Its a contradiction to say that a body has a soul/spirit but that said spirit isn't localized within the body it occupies.
    It makes perfect sense - unless you (general) make invalid a priori assumptions - which is what you do when you insist that a soul, which is not material, must behave as if it were.

    That's assuming a worldview (materialism) and probably the conclusion (that souls don't exist because they aren't material). It's actually illogical when discussing souls/spirits - they cannot be discussed from materialism. To discuss them you (general) MUST allow that the immaterial exists - the instant you do, the idea of a physical connection or location of the soul to the body becomes esoteric if not irrelevant.

    Well, I do appreciate the attemp Tea, but what I'm really looking for is a correct view.
    You've already been given that, Jim, but you haven't understood it because you aren't allowing the immaterial. The soul and body go together - the mechanism is unknown - and probably spiritual. Your 'where does the soul go' question is nonsensical to every school of thought but materialism - the soul isn't physical and doesn't need a physical or material connection to the body - it doesn't need a location.

    I can deal with anything Tea, so long as it makes sense.
    The school of materialism rejects the idea that anything is truly immaterial - you personally might be able to grasp that but you're not gonna while working from a materialist framework - it's like trying to see treponemes with a light field - yes, it's a microscope but no, treponemes aren't going to be visible at any magnification. For that, you need a dark field. You're looking at the thing through the 'microscope' of materialism - which is why you can't see it. The soul being immaterial yet able to interact with the body isn't a contradiction or a logical difficulty - unless you are convinced the immaterial doesn't exist.

  8. Amen One Bad Pig amen'd this post.
  9. #628
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,093
    Amen (Given)
    2033
    Amen (Received)
    1397
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Think about it - do your lungs occupy space? How, they are inside something (you) occupying space? Mass affects space but doesn't displace it (if it did, space would be like air and it isn't).
    There is a biological explanation for lungs and why they are located where they are. There is no explanation for ‘souls’, just an unsubstantiated assertion that they exist.

    It makes perfect sense - unless you (general) make invalid a priori assumptions - which is what you do when you insist that a soul, which is not material, must behave as if it were.

    That's assuming a worldview (materialism) and probably the conclusion (that souls don't exist because they aren't material).
    It’s quite reasonably “assuming a worldview (materialism)” in the absence of a substantiated immaterial worldview.

    It's actually illogical when discussing souls/spirits - they cannot be discussed from materialism. To discuss them you (general) MUST allow that the immaterial exists - the instant you do, the idea of a physical connection or location of the soul to the body becomes esoteric if not irrelevant.
    There is no valid reason to “allow that the immaterial exists” in the first place.

    You've already been given that, Jim, but you haven't understood it because you aren't allowing the immaterial. The soul and body go together - the mechanism is unknown - and probably spiritual. Your 'where does the soul go' question is nonsensical to every school of thought but materialism - the soul isn't physical and doesn't need a physical or material connection to the body - it doesn't need a location.
    Really! there is no evidence of this. And there's no possible "mechanism" for what cannot be shown to exist.

    The school of materialism rejects the idea that anything is truly immaterial - you personally might be able to grasp that but you're not gonna while working from a materialist framework - it's like trying to see treponemes with a light field - yes, it's a microscope but no, treponemes aren't going to be visible at any magnification. For that, you need a dark field. You're looking at the thing through the 'microscope' of materialism - which is why you can't see it. The soul being immaterial yet able to interact with the body isn't a contradiction or a logical difficulty - unless you are convinced the immaterial doesn't exist.
    There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. To argue that there is, is wishful thinking.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  10. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  11. #629
    tWebber Rational Gaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    2029
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,030
    Amen (Given)
    204
    Amen (Received)
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. To argue that there is, is wishful thinking.
    Your entry for the most absurd and self-evidently false claim of the year has been submitted and received. Thank you for your submission.

  12. Amen Cow Poke, Quantum Weirdness amen'd this post.
  13. #630
    tWebber Rational Gaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    2029
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,030
    Amen (Given)
    204
    Amen (Received)
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    What substantive evidence do you have that there is a logically coherent alternative to materialism.
    Literally every substantive work on philosophy ever written.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There isn't to my knowledge.
    Presumably because your total knowledge combined is lower than the ankle-socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country.

  14. Amen Sparko, Teallaura amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •