Darwinists Running Scared

[TeeJay]

It's like me not knowing whats in the room next to me, so instead of just shrugging my shoulders I decide that there is a unicorn in it. And of course when anyone suggest unicorns don't exist you can hit them with the marvellous logic of "well you can't prove it, there might be one in that room".

Saying that something *might* be the case isn't the same as saying it *is* the case.

There isn't anything wrong with putting forward theories for which there is currently no proof - scientists have been know to do this ... and the go away and design experiments to look for the proof.

phildwyer - you say that materialists claim that consciousness is manufactured, being the product of matter and that this is a "very silly claim".

What is the philosophy called that sees consciousness as an emergent property of matter - and more specifically of certain types of matter - ie human brains? Do you think this idea is "very silly" and if so why?

 

[phildwyer]

At its best science is agnostic about things that are currently beyond its reach or which are philosophically beyond its discourse or outside its terms of reference.

In that case, we haven't seen much of science's "best" around here lately. What we *have* seen is a bunch of rabid anti-theists desperately, passionately, asserting that Darwinism disproves the existence of God, and claiming that consciousness is the product of material factors. As you say, in reality, these are issues that empirical science can never settle and should not address. Would that more scientists accepted the limitiations of their discipline.

 

[phildwyer]

phildwyer - you say that materialists claim that consciousness is manufactured, being the product of matter and that this is a "very silly claim".

What is the philosophy called that sees consciousness as an emergent property of matter - and more specifically of certain types of matter - ie human brains? Do you think this idea is "very silly" and if so why?

That philosophy is called "materialism." It is sily because, while it is obvious that while human beings are alive consciousness could not exist without the material brain, it does not follow that it is *produced* by the brain. Those who claim that it is draw an unwarranted inference, which is a silly thing to do.

 

[revol68]

whilst you of course use the gap in knowledge to infer a whole seperate realm outside of the material complete with a nice little patriarch.

You are the one making inferences.

 

[nosos]

what is unscientific though is to take these gaps in knowledge and invent some happy clap bullshit.

We are along way off fully understanding consciousness but it doesn't validate putting forward theories that there is absolutely no proof for to fill the void.

It's like me not knowing whats in the room next to me, so instead of just shrugging my shoulders I decide that there is a unicorn in it. And of course when anyone suggest unicorns don't exist you can hit them with the marvellous logic of "well you can't prove it, there might be one in that room".

But any sort of (I agree necessarily falacious) attempt to provide a scientific basis for that sort of belief is a post-hoc rationalisation. It's not the basis for the belief. It misses the point entirely to attack the belief on the basis that it's unscientific . . .

 

[TeeJay]

...As you say, in reality, these are issues that empirical science can never settle and should not address...

That all depends on what you define as god or consciousness tho' doesn't it? If someone is claiming that god is some old bloke sitting on a cloud throeing lighting bolts at people then science can have a good crack at showing that the idea is very unlikely. I believe that religion, spirituality, ethics, philosophy and so forth can be very usefully informed by knowing more about the universe in which we live.


Just as scientists should try and understand the philosophy of science and not stereotype and misunderstand other thinkers and modes of thought, so these others - and this seems to include yourself - should try and understand what science - at its best, or when it is in fact actually "science" - is saying and not saying.

Your whole arguments seems to rely on a characature of science. I can't see who here is actually claiming what you say they are. Who here for example supports what you have called 'orthodox darwinism'? I can't see anyone.

 

[revol68]

why thanks marx, I feel like a right Feurbach now

yeh your of course right, but when people like phyl try and claim some sort of scientific basis for there assaults on materialism in order to raise up their own crack pot theories it is necessary to point out the stupidity of it.

 

[nosos]

yeh your of course right, but when people like phyl try and claim some sort of scientific basis for there assaults on materialism in order to raise up their own crack pot theories it is necessary to point out the stupidity of it.

Oh I agree entirely. I've always been more bemused by the question of quite why they feel the need to do it. I've met some very far from stupid people who try and do this on a regular basis. Somehow they feel their belief system can't function without it?

 

[phildwyer]

why thanks marx, I feel like a right Feurbach now

yeh your of course right, but when people like phyl try and claim some sort of scientific basis for there assaults on materialism in order to raise up their own crack pot theories it is necessary to point out the stupidity of it.

You are an ignorant clown. I don't claim a scientific basis for my attack on materialism, but rather a rational one. Your knowledge of the history of thought is neatly summed up by your apparent conviction that Marx was a materialist. In short, I do not believe that you have ever read either any philosophy or any science. I think you're a loudmouthed fraud.

 

[revol68]

the strange thing is that im normally the one pointng out to my mates that science is not some objective truth realm but rather is rooted in wider social relations. But having seen Phil engage in some of the worst and I have to say confused critiques of science I have a new found sympathy for the "hard" sciences.

Perhaps Phill should read Bhaskar on critical realism.

 

[nosos]

Your knowledge of the history of thought is neatly summed up by your apparent conviction that Marx was a materialist. In short, I do not believe that you have ever read either any philosophy or any science. I think you're a loudmouthed fraud.

How on earth was Marx not a materialist???

(I'm drunk & in no way capable of even a semi-cogent discussion but I'd really appreciate any sort of outline/links on this subject)

 

[phildwyer]

Your whole arguments seems to rely on a characature of science. I can't see who here is actually claiming what you say they are. Who here for example supports what you have called 'orthodox darwinism'? I can't see anyone.

I believe the phrase I usually use is "Darwinian fundamentalist." By this, I do not intend one who sticks to the letter of Darwin, but one who uses Darwin as the basis for all sorts of illegitimate extrpolation. Darwin was wrong, so extrapolation from Darwin is much wronger. It would probably be counter-productive to name names of contributors here, but in real life, Richard Dawkins would be a prime exampe of a Darwinian fundamentalist.

 

[revol68]

You are an ignorant clown. I don't claim a scientific basis for my attack on materialism, but rather a rational one. Your knowledge of the history of thought is neatly summed up by your apparent conviction that Marx was a materialist. In short, I do not believe that you have ever read either any philosophy or any science. I think you're a loudmouthed fraud.

and science isn't based on rationalism?? Or do you take science to be crude positivist empiricism?

If you can get me some sources relating to marx not being a materialist I will promise to set up my web cam and fuck myself with my mouse!

I think you have a very crude understanding of materialism and i think you like it that way, as it means you can postulate your daft theist nonsense as an antidote.

 

[phildwyer]

How on earth was Marx not a materialist???

He was a dialectician, and dialecticians can't be monists. I've been through this a million times before on this and other threads. I don't usually do this--its lazy--but I'm weary of trying to instruct idiots like revol68, so I'll just refer you to some external reading: try having a look at George Lukacs's _History and Class-consciousness_, the chapter called "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat."

 

[phildwyer]

If you can get me some sources relating to marx not being a materialist I will promise to set up my web cam and fuck myself with my mouse!

OK, you have yourself a deal. Are you serious? Because I am.

 

[nosos]

<no point when I'm drunk>

 

[phildwyer]

This post is such utter bullshit but I'm too inebriated to articulate why. Alas!

Do you realise quite how patronisingly you come across?

Do you realize how drunk you come across?

 

[nosos]

See edit & then go fuck yourself.

 

[phildwyer]

See edit & then go fuck yourself.

Drunken oaf. Sleep it off and get back to us in the morning. Or not, if you prefer.

 

[phildwyer]

If you can get me some sources relating to marx not being a materialist I will promise to set up my web cam and fuck myself with my mouse!

Lube up that mouse, fool. I've got to nip out for a few minutes, but I expect you to reply and say that you're serious about this by the time I get back.

 

[revol68]

Oh, Lukacs never heard of him.

oh wait he would the "historicist" marxist who brought the proletariat as an active subject back onto the centre court after the 2nd international had them evicted in favour of the means of production.

yes he was very Hegelian but he was never anything but a materialism. I think you'll find your mistaking "monoism" as a theory of mind, with some sort of mechanical determinism which removes the subject as an active historical agent.

And im afraid iv'e read "History and Class Consciousness" only unlike you i seem to have got a reasonable grasp of it's arguments.

"Thought and existance are not indentical in the sense that they "correspond" to each other, or "reflect" each other, that they "run parrallel" to each other or "conicide" with each other (all expressions that conceal rigid duality). Their identity is that they are aspects of one and the same real historical and dialectical process"
I see no mention of a sphere seperate from the material world in this. Infact I see it as saying that thought whilst being part of the material world is at the same time not indentical to it, that thought always tend to rush ahead. This is not an argument that thought is not part of the material world but rather that thought is just not a passive reflection of it.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh, Lukacs never heard of him.

oh wait he would the "historicist" marxist who brought the proletariat as an active subject back onto the centre court after the 2nd international had them evicted in favour of the means of production.

yes he was very Hegelian but he was never anything but a materialism. I think you'll find your mistaking "monoism" as a theory of mind, with some sort of mechanical determinism which removes the subject as an active historical agent.

And im afraid iv'e read "History and Class Consciousness" only unlike you i seem to have got a reasonable grasp of it's arguments.

"Thought and existance are not indentical in the sense that they "correspond" to each other, or "reflect" each other, that they "run parrallel" to each other or "conicide" with each other (all expressions that conceal rigid duality). Their identity is that they are aspects of one and the same real historical and dialectical process"
I see no mention of a sphere seperate from the material world in this. Infact I see it as saying that thought whilst being part of the material world is at the same time not indentical to it, that thought always tend to rush ahead. This is not an argument that thought is not part of the material world but rather that thought is just not a passive reflection of it.

Lube up that mouse, fool. Not chickening out, are we?

 

[revol68]

so go on get a quote showing Marx as not a materialist.

And i don't mean one from stupid liberation theology website.

I want one from a reputable marxist scholar.

The mouse is lubed and I would hope to disappoint it.

 

[phildwyer]

so go on get a quote showing Marx as not a materialist.

And i don't mean one from stupid liberation theology website.

I want one from a reputable marxist scholar.

The mouse is lubed and I would hope to disappoint it.

That's going to be one happy mouse. Will you posting the event as an attachment to this thread or what? I can't wait.

"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances must be changed by men and that the educator must himself be educated. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society."

Karl Marx, _Theses on Feuerbach_.

 

[revol68]

but that was just a critique of mechanical materialism you fucking moron!!!! the point of it is to show that if we stick to feuerbachs mechanical materialism we would need to split society into two parts to explain social change.

He is not saying that he seeks to divide society in to two parts. He is saying that feuerbachs materialism having no place for consciousness as a material force on the world is forced into an implict idealism in order to explain change.

 

[revol68]

marxs whole point is that consciousness is material.

Seriously what University are you employed by and in what role?

 

[phildwyer]

If you can get me some sources relating to marx not being a materialist I will promise to set up my web cam and fuck myself with my mouse!

Get a move on, I can't sit here all night. In fact, I think you should do it once for every quotation I cite. In the _Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts_, Marx claims that his method "is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both." (International Publishers edition of the Complete Works, 1975, 3:299).

In other words, you cretin, he is a dialectician. Go ahead, we're waiting.

 

[revol68]

One more fucking time!!!

Materialism and dialetics are not fucking mutually exclusive!!!

You can't go taking quotes out of context like that you cretin!

Seriously what University employs you?

 

[phildwyer]

You can't go taking quotes out of context like that you cretin!

You *promised,* and I quote your own words verbatim:

"If you can get me some sources relating to marx not being a materialist I will promise to set up my web cam and fuck myself with my mouse!"

I have provided such sources from Marx himself, and I have literally thousands more, both from Marx and his commentators. Will you now fulfill your promise, or are you going to reveal yourself as a liar and coward as well as a moron?

 

[revol68]

You've suppplied two, one of which was Marx's response to Feuerbach in which he is criticising Feuerbachs crude materialism for opening the door for idealism via the backdoor.

The other one is marx giving a rough outline of his position, you have tried to remove it from it's contextual basis ie what materialism was understood as back then.

Does it say Marx rejects materialism outright, does it say Marx believes in a spiritual sphere?

And since this thread started with you accussing Darwinists of running scared perhaps you would like to inform me as to why marx whom according to you was not a materialist held Darwin in such high regard. Darwin of course to you is the ultimate materialist.