South African Skeptics

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions [split]

Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
Sam Harris wants to disregard the is/ought, fact/value dichotomies and in doing so circumvent the naturalistic fallacy and claim that science can determine an ought from an is.

I wonder if he is aware of natural law theory? Or if he even has some sort of understanding of the terms "good" and "goodness"?

Moreover, to argue for an in-principle incompatibility between our materialistic (philosophically speaking) conceptions of mind/brain and such ideas as intentionality and will (free or otherwise) is to ignore the entire realm of emergent phenomena and the infancy in which the physics thereof presently finds itself.
Muffles, I'll ask you again:
What is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality?

You continuously employ bait and switch tactics whenever you discuss "materialism" or "materialistic philosophy".

You bait by praising the success and "history" of the "materialistic approach", whatever that is, you don't say.
And when asked to elaborate on this (and your understanding of materialistic philosophy), you switch by saying materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position.

You want to call yourself a materialist and praise its successes but at the same time haven't got a clue what it entails and then demand that some other "scientific" approach is needed before abandoning materialism.


« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 22:23:06 pm by BluEGrAY »
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3797
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
Since you are patently incapable of following something that has been explained to you in several different ways at several different times and places, I’ll not waste my time.

So, whatever you say, Teleological.  Whatever you say.

Now be a good boy and go back to playing with your pigeonholes, see?

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
Since you are patently incapable of following something that has been explained to you in several different ways at several different times and places, I’ll not waste my time.

So, whatever you say, Teleological.  Whatever you say.

Now be a good boy and go back to playing with your pigeonholes, see?

'Luthon64
I wouldn't mind a few links to these alleged explanations... Especially the ones were you "at several different times and places" explained what is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality.

Waiting...
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3797
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
Waiting...
Why?  You are perhaps bored with your pigeonholes, yes?  Say it’s not so!

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
Stop evading the question ::).
What is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality?
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3797
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
It’s floating around these forums, as you very well know.  What part of “I’ll not waste my time” is causing you grief?  Hounding me won’t do you any good either.  You’ll just get more of the same.  Your choice.

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
It’s floating around these forums, as you very well know.  What part of “I’ll not waste my time” is causing you grief?  Hounding me won’t do you any good either.  You’ll just get more of the same.  Your choice.

'Luthon64
You see, the reason I keep asking you this very simple question (well it should be for a person that praises "the success and history of the materialistic approach", whatever that is) is that you actually have not. You have not in any of your posts described what your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is.

I don't think that you even know what you are talking about when you talk about materialism/materialistic approach/materialistic conception etc. It just seems to sounds good to you for some weird reason.
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline rwenzori

  • Sniper
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 403
    • Skeptical ability: +7/-1
  • Merda accidit.

You see, the reason I keep asking you this very simple question (well it should be for a person that praises "the success and history of the materialistic approach", whatever that is) is that you actually have not. You have not in any of your posts described what your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is.

I don't think that you even know what you are talking about when you talk about materialism/materialistic approach/materialistic conception etc. It just seems to sounds good to you for some weird reason.

LOL! If it ain't old BOÖTES the clone, raised from the dead just like Lazarus. It was BOÖTES, agreeing with Techne, who was really the great BOÖTES himself, who was Techne actually, and who is Teleological, who said

Quote
Well, I am with you that the statement "Reality (including your brain or mind or whatever) is nothing but matter." is probably false.

What happened? Tire of debating these heavy matters with yourself? Were you cloned by the Raelians? Or were you just Siamese twins joined at the brain, but now separated ( sadly with some loss of mental capacity )?  ;D ;D

Stop being rude now, and do try to behave - remember what happened to you over at MyBB when you couldn't control yourself LOL. And try to engage what little is left of your brain and try the amazing teleological function SEARCH - you will find Mefiante's views clearly stated all over the forum. Or is she a tad high-brow for you, above your head, English not being your home tongue and all that? After all, no point BOÖTING yourself in the arse and looking stupid.

Never draw fire - it irritates everyone around you.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

You see, the reason I keep asking you this very simple question (well it should be for a person that praises "the success and history of the materialistic approach", whatever that is) is that you actually have not. You have not in any of your posts described what your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is.

I don't think that you even know what you are talking about when you talk about materialism/materialistic approach/materialistic conception etc. It just seems to sounds good to you for some weird reason.

LOL! If it ain't old BOÖTES the clone, raised from the dead just like Lazarus. It was BOÖTES, agreeing with Techne, who was really the great BOÖTES himself, who was Techne actually, and who is Teleological, who said
??? What's this all about? Do you know the meaning of "clone/sock puppet"? It actually means the same person with different nicknames agreeing with each other (sort of like your several clones @ MyBB, Telephrone comes to mind lol), not two different people agreeing with each other no matter what. They are called sycophants, much like muffles supporting your "Merda accidit" for some weird reason lol. Now that you know the meaning of "clone/sock puppet", I hope you realise you have mistakenly and rudely accused me of it. Bad telephrone cough rwenzori...

And try to engage what little is left of your brain and try the amazing teleological function SEARCH - you will find Mefiante's views clearly stated all over the forum. Or is she a tad high-brow for you, above your head, English not being your home tongue and all that? After all, no point BOÖTING yourself in the arse and looking stupid.
Well, if you stop for 1 second to just blindly (almost sycophant-like) jump in and try and defend muffles, why don't you try to use the search button yourself to try and find where muffles explained in her own words what her understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is. Be constructive for once in your life  ;), you'll realise she hasn't got a clue.
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline Hermes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1137
    • Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Do you know the meaning of "clone/sock puppet"?
Do you know the meaning of "gadfly/gatvlieg"?
My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain.  My brain is going to rot. - Richard Dawkins


Offline rwenzori

  • Sniper
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 403
    • Skeptical ability: +7/-1
  • Merda accidit.

??? What's this all about? Do you know the meaning of "clone/sock puppet"? It actually means the same person with different nicknames agreeing with each other (sort of like your several clones @ MyBB, Telephrone comes to mind lol), not two different people agreeing with each other no matter what. They are called sycophants, much like muffles supporting your "Merda accidit" for some weird reason lol. Now that you know the meaning of "clone/sock puppet", I hope you realise you have mistakenly and rudely accused me of it. Bad telephrone cough rwenzori...

Oh wow! THAT was a hard one to work out LOL! But you don't see my other MyBB personae do you? Yours on the other hand are a bit obvious.

Well, if you stop for 1 second to just blindly (almost sycophant-like) jump in and try and defend muffles, why don't you try to use the search button yourself to try and find where muffles explained in her own words what her understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is. Be constructive for once in your life  ;), you'll realise she hasn't got a clue.

Why? Can't you manage by yourself? Ag shame. Besides, the one with very little clue is you. But you might follow in the footsteps of the Great Redeemer and redeem yourself by telling us what YOUR view is of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception". Not quite the same as an Immaculate Conception, I'll bet LOL. In your own words. No links, no quote-mining. If you can, anyway.
Never draw fire - it irritates everyone around you.


Offline BOÖTES

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Skeptical ability: +0/-0
What is your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality?

Oh yes! I quite agree with Teleological. Teleological, you know we worship your awesomeness, please tell us about materialist concoction. Oh do, please.
Jesus loves me this I know, 'coz the Bible tells me so.


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3797
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
You see, the reason I keep asking you this very simple question (well it should be for a person that praises "the success and history of the materialistic approach", whatever that is) is that you actually have not.
No, sweet Tinklepops.  The reason you keep asking the question is because you are not sufficiently skerp to recognise an answer when it is presented to you, suppositorially rather than by in-you-end-o.  Now you seek to make your incapacity my problem.



You have not in any of your posts described what your understanding of a "materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception" of reality is.
Oh my, what fundamentalist tendencies you display!  Repeating X over and over and over again fails to render X true, you know.  Sadly, religionists have exhausted that tactic for you.



I don't think that you even know what you are talking about when you talk about materialism/materialistic approach/materialistic conception etc.
You reckon, eh?  Ignorance does abound.



It just seems to sounds good to you for some weird reason.
The only weirdness here is your constant inability to grasp the goodies.  And it doesn’t sound good, neither.

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3797
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
Well now, “Flame Wars.”  Hello again, old friend. ;D

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
Muffles, you can evade the question all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you haven't got a clue ;). If you had any, it wouldn't be so difficult to answer such a simple question. Instead you invest, laughingly, so much energy to evade, insult and accuse others of the very things you are guilty of. And you say others have fundamentalist tendencies...ROFL  ::).

Oh Hermes, yes, I can understand why you might think of this place as a "longdrop". Lol, that must be what rwenzori and muffles' view of reality is like.

And can you spell... toady? And btw, do you even care that muffles is a materialist, despite her having no clue (or limited anyway) what it entails...
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead