1. Atomic particles are not rational. 2. If we consist solely of atomic particles we cannot be rational. 3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything. 4. But then we cannot know we consist solely of atomic particles! 5. Therefore materialism must be false. Looking for input on this argument. Part Two of Materialism discussion; http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritua...-mind-emerging-out-matter-via-complexity.html
I think this is the fallacy of composition where you are assuming that the qualities of the whole are the same as or limited by the qualities of the parts. The sum can be greater than the parts. 1. Atomic particles are not visible to the naked eye. 2. We consist solely of atomic particles. 3. Therefore, we are not visible to the naked eye. Edit: It's worth noting that assuming what is true of the parts is also true of the whole is not inherently a fallacy, but it depends on what qualities are being discussed.
Thank you, I was thinking similar. I was thinking more along the lines of 1) Hydrogen is not wet. 2) Oxygen is not wet. 3) H2O (water) is wet. 4) Therefore there is some intangible entity that makes water wet. 5) That intangible entity is not meterial, since wetness is not material. 6) Therefore God (the infinitely wet entity) exists! jokingly of course But yours was much clearer
Why aren't atomic particles rational? Is it not irrational to think that everything must fit into your notions of rationality? I feel that the material is illusory, but it's got little to with rationality. "The only problem with your way is that it does not account for not-your-way." Edit- Maybe when you say atomic particles are not rational, you mean that they do not posess gnosis of rationality... which brings it full cirlce; rationality is an illusory phenomenon.
It's irrational to expect to eventually make reasonable sense out of the world! Stop trying! Go back to bed, Humanity! Your religious authority has figured out how it all transpired.
OP is basically right, however all you need to do is look at materialistic people and how fucked up their lives are and you come to the same conclusion
I take it you are neither materialistic nor fucked up in any way conceivable. Your live must be one exciting place.
I was going to say something of the same type, in that chaos (irrationality) is simply a pattern (rationality) we haven't recognized yet, and perhaps never will.
Order. Chaos. Irrationality. These are just words. The Universe does not have to 'fit' in your Mind, it is already there. "It is beyond is or is not."
Atomic particles are best defined by reference to the quantifiable aspects of their being. It has been argued that the standard definition of an atom is more a linguistic construct and that atoms in and of themselves are not repeatable. There can be no two atoms that are 100% identical in properties w/ out violating the rule of "no 2 objects in the same place at the same time", assuming you consider spatiotemporal location to be a property of an object. The structure of those quantitative descriptions is extrapolated from the physical, (material) world by way of empirical observation. The descriptions constitute physical laws. The best method we have of describing things which are not empirical, (as in metaphysical things, or non-material things), is by examining sets of possible outcomes according to variances in future conditions. We examine sets of possible outcomes w/ regard to variances in future, or unknown conditions by reference to modalities such as necessity and possibility. Some people call this a "counterfactual analysis". The same principles hold for both types of description. Those speculative and pluralistic about outcomes, and those empirical and which point to singularities. Because the principles are the same, we can use the same descriptions, and because the descriptions are extrapolated from the physical world in the form of "laws of physics", and because we can construct linguistic models of supervenience in which there is a 1:1 correlation between instances of "matter" and "non-matter", for all intents and purposes, materialism is true. I don't understand too much about how rational agency plays into this. It seems to be more an issue of ontology. What exists? Physical objects? Non physical objects? Or both? The main distinction that I can come up w/ regarding materialists has to do w/ the notion that some of them think, "all things are matter such as solid liquid or gas". Others, (such as myself), think that, "all things whether they are made of solids liquids gasses or "non-matter" exist, function, and are understood according to the same principles and therefore since this identity has been made, materialism is true".
^^ Only base posts of title or short threads. Never do people actually read and try to understand an OP, that applies to many other user's threads. ...which is why I hate using this forum. Good day.
Me?? I was actually saying that I agree with materialism, but possibly for the same reasons that you state it to be false. When I think of rationality, I think of it more in a game-theoretical context. Materialism imo is just more an issue of ontology. First I'd decide whether I believed in things that aren't matter, then I'd decide how to increase utility given that. If we define rationality as "following a specific set of principles" and we remove the need for agency, then anything would be rational I suppose, to more or less a degree determinable by understanding the efficiency it has in getting from where it is to where it wants to be. It's just hard for me to think of atoms as having a sense of increased utility, especially w/ out any sense of agency.
LOL no, I was agreeing with you when you corrected the kid on materialism. All he did was look at "Materialism: Are we rational or irrational" and thought, "Yeah people have too much nice things." lol
I almost posted the video to madonna's material girl video, but I didn't want to shit on your thread like that.