3 ms·
I was honestly trying to be facetious before. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Text sucks. I actually think it was really inappropriate that you were down-voted.
by verbin217 11y ago
I was honestly trying to be facetious before. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Text sucks. I actually think it was really inappropriate that you were down-voted. The notion that you should have to produce material definitions for concepts presented as fundamentally non-material is tautologically absurd. It's basically a rude way of suggesting that you shouldn't present that view here. I think, absent some success by materialists, presenting non-material notions of an apparent thing is utterly acceptable. Not only that yours was on topic and directly in response to a comment you apparently read and attempted to respond to earnestly.
- onnoonno 11y agoMaybe a related question: Where does the idea of materialism fall? Is the idea of materialism itself part of materialism?
- nitrogen 11y agoYes, obviously, in that the idea is embodied as neural connections in the brains of materialists. Any phenomenon that emerges from materialistic processes is also materialistic.
- verbin217 11y agoYou can couple material with complexity such that everything can apparently be material. However if we limit our notion of "material" to what we observe in our universe then we can easily do the same with conceivable forms of non-material. We can even simulate them in our entirely material world using the universal correspondence of the turing machine. The "everything is material" explanation is a degraded form of the "everything is complexity" explanation. I suspect most formulations of an intelligent entity or an "idea" would be non-materially formulated but materially represented in this same way. If you assume materialism is the explanation for everything then yes all known instances of the materialism idea are incidentally materialistic.