Filip Sandor

Hi everyone,

I started a couple threads in here a few months back, challenging the validity of materialism, but they seem to have disappeared -- there is one left however and if anyone is interested in reading it, here is a link to it ==&gt; <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000019" target="_blank">Consciousness IS... but what is conscious?</a> &lt;==. I should mention thought, just in case anyone is wondering how about the status of that debate, it came to an abrupt ending because we lacked a proper definition of what it means to be aware; .

Anyway, I haven't posted here for quite some time now, but I did follow a link posted by Tronvillain, which brought me back here from the <a href="http://www.randi.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=4" target="_blank">JREF Religion and Philosophy Forum</a>.

Me and the fellas there are having an ongoing debate (well over 700 posts long now) about materialism, debating it's logical flaws and I just thought you guys may want to join in the debate.

The materialists there are starting to say some pretty wacky things (ie. making claims like: the mind, which is exhibits different characteristics from *a.k.a. is different from* the physical activity that it corresponds to in the brain... is the physical activity that it corresponds to in the brain... etc.)! I just thought that maybe some of the brilliant minds in this forum may want to come on over and give a few lessons in logic to the materialists there who are in great need of your support.

Anyone interested...??

Here are the links to the two main (biggest) threads of the debate in chronological order:

<a href="http://www.randi.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000151" target="_blank">Materailism: flawed or not 1</a>
<a href="http://www.randi.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000287" target="_blank">Materialism: flawed or not 2</a>

P.S. See you there!!

tronvillain

One of those threads (along with a few others) has already come up in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000032" target="_blank">Materialism, dead as an Undercover Elephant</a>. It's an entertaining thread, though there is a complete failure to show any logical flaws in materialism.

Filip Sandor

But Tronvillain... to claim that two things, which are characteristically different from eachother, are the same thing (as the materialists at the <a href="http://www.randi.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=4" target="_blank">JREF Forum</a> are claiming) is a direct uppercut to logic. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

It is a ridiculous claim that can only be embraced in faith... as far as I know.

If I claimed that my TV is my car because my car is the thing that enabled me to transport my TV home from the store... wouldn't you accept my claim to be logically sound??

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Filip Sandor ]</p>

tronvillain

Who is supposed to have said this and where?

Filip Sandor

Synaesthesia is one, Stimpson is another... I can't recall everyone who made such claims off the top of my head, but there are several people there who did and nobody else seems to disagree with them, which I take to be indicative of their agreement.

Pretty weird, if you ask me..

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Filip Sandor ]</p>

tronvillain

And what did they actually say?

Filip Sandor

They claim that the mind (which is characteristically different from the brain) is the brain (which is characteristically different from the mind).

Note: This may be hard to swallow by some people, but it remains as a violation of logic. Something cannot be something else that it is characteristically different from.

To clarify even further (because I feel I must).. certain things bear certain qualitites or characterisitics which are not common to anything else. If two such things exist, both bearing qualities that are unique only to them, then logically, they cannot be classified as the being the same.

The materialists at the JREF Forum appear to not comprehend this.

I hope that helps.

Theophage

To say that the mind is the brain is silly. Clearly the brain has properties that the mind does not, so they cannot be the same. It is more correct (from a materialist point of view) to say that the mind is a function of the brain, similar to the way that circulation is the function of the circulatory system, but is not the system itself. You can have the system without the function (i.e. in dead people), but you cannot have the function without the system.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

tronvillain

I didn't ask you to paraphrase what they said, I asked you what they actually said. For all I know they may have said essentially what Theophage just did, which is perfectly reasonable.

Filip Sandor

Can you explain awhat do you mean when you say that the mind is a 'function of' the brain? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">