₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Not the point. The point is, when you ask for proof for something supposedly imperceptible, what type of proof exactly are you asking for since proof simply means "Appeal to my perceptibility".

For instance, String Theory (which by the way is the strongest theory at the moment employed in explaining the universe) allows for extra dimensions beyond this.

What proof would you require to believe this?

In other words, you're saying that there's no way to prove or disprove an object beyond our perceptive capacity, and i'm saying that said object is thus, unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, what reason do i have to believe in it?

LordReed:
I think we are hitting a mix up here of two different things. Unperceptible and immaterial are two different things. The extra dimensions as envisioned by string theory may very well be "material" like time is "material" we just have not found a way of measuring such dimensions so they are unperceptible. Immaterial on the other hand declares such things as having no physical dimensions by which they may be observed or measured. This to me are 2 fundamentally different things so which are you concerned with?

Time isn't material bro, not at all. Even in physics time is non-spatial.

Material means 'matter' or consisting of matter.

Matter simply everything with weight and occupies space.

This definition implies matter is descenable through the senses.

Immaterial means 'not matter' not consisting of matter.

Hence the perceptibility of immaterial often eludes the senses.

So what do you think bro? Is it logical to conclusively believe only that which is material exists?

IAmSabrina:
In other words, you're saying that there's no way to prove or disprove an object beyond our perceptive capacity,

It can be logically deduced though, mathematically if you will.

Let me ask a question;

Are ideas material?

and i'm saying that said object is thus, unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, what reason do i have to believe in it?

There isn't any to state conclusively that it isn't there either. Or is there?

johnydon22:
It can be logically deduced though, mathematically if you will.

There isn't any to state conclusively that it isn't there either. Or is there?

To be honest, i'm not really grasping the message of this thread but maybe its because am very busy and not home now

Maybe when i return, i'll go through it well. If there is any need to, i'll mention you

IAmSabrina:
To be honest, i'm not really grasping the message of this thread but maybe its because am very busy and not home now

Maybe when i return, i'll go through it well. If there is any need to, i'll mention you

It is actually simple, let me simplify it further.

It is a question and the question is;

Is it illogical to conclusively believe that nothing exists except that which is material and hence can be reduced to the senses?

johnydon22:
It is actually simple, let me simplify it further.

It is a question and the question is;

Is it illogical to conclusively believe that nothing exists except that which is material and hence can be reduced to the senses?

Perhaps. Although i think explaining the world from a materialistic perspective is sufficient.....
a) I don't see any reason why consciousness couldn't be explained as chemical processes in the brain
b) I don't see any reason, be it empirical or philosophical, to support the existence of the supernatural
c) God(s), near death experiences, miracles, and other unexplained phenomena usually associated with the supernatural can be explained scientifically and from a materialist worldview.

Note that i'm not saying that the supernatural doesn't exist. Rather, i'm not sure there's any reason to believe any thing exists outside the physical world.

Like i said, i'm not home yet. When i return i'll try and contribute properly to the discussion....

johnydon22:
Time isn't material bro, not at all. Even in physics time is non-spatial.

Material means 'matter' or consisting of matter.

Matter simply everything with weight and occupies space.

This definition implies matter is descenable through the senses.

Immaterial means 'not matter' not consisting of matter.

Hence the perceptibility of immaterial often eludes the senses.

So what do you think bro? Is it logical to conclusively believe only that which is material exists?

If this is how you are describing immaterial then no, it is not logical to hold a position that says only the material exists because you then have to explain how time exists and is immaterial.

IAmSabrina:
Perhaps. Although i think explaining the world from a materialistic perspective is sufficient.....
a) I don't see any reason why consciousness couldn't be explained as chemical processes in the brain
b) I don't see any reason, be it empirical or philosophical, to support the existence of the supernatural
c) God(s), near death experiences, miracles, and other unexplained phenomena usually associated with the supernatural can be explained scientifically and from a materialist worldview.

Note that i'm not saying that the supernatural doesn't exist. Rather, i'm not sure there's any reason to believe any thing exists outside the physical world.

Like i said, i'm not home yet. When i return i'll try and contribute properly to the discussion....

I'm not sure those are things I'm talking about but still it sounds like you are not making an absolute statement which is cool then

Materialism is logical but shouldn't be on conclusive basis.

tintingz:
Materialism is logical but shouldn't be on conclusive basis.

So on a conclusive basis, it is illogical?

johnydon22:
So on a conclusive basis, it is illogical?

It depends.

Let's say there's a small village.
This village is surrounded by a very tall and strong wall. The people in this village can't know what's behind the wall because of the height. The ground is so hard that they can't dig it and make a pass or tunnel to the other side. Even if they gather everything they have in the village to make a ladder, it won't reach 10% of the height of this wall. The wall is strong and deep that they can't hear anything from the other side. They have never seen any objects flying from the other side to their land...Meaning that they have no idea of what's behind the wall and there's a possibility that they might never know.
Now, if the King/leader of this village is being asked by his subjects of what's behind the wall, what do you think would be his reply. I suggest the king would just tell them "There's where you go when you die... but because you are still alive now, you can never know"

I might not be making sense, though.

johnydon22:
As a literal philosophical representation, materialists can be termed Reductionists and materialism termed Reductionism because the fundamental principle behind this school of thought basically reduces everything to what can be perceived.

A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of throught?
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment sections)

Does colour exist to the totally blind?
No matter how much you may try explaining what colour's are to them,they still can't sense what colours really are.Of course,this doesnt mean colours dont exist,but to these set of people,colours exist only to the point explainable or can be inferred by them.
That it can't be perceived by the sense doesn't mean its non-existence.In the realm of physics,mathematics can enable us infer concepts which can't be perceived or measured...thou the problem this presents is that even false results in reality could hold true in maths.Hence,if it can never be perceived then we can never know for sure what's true.

tartar9:
Does colour exist to the totally blind?
No matter how much you may try explaining what colour's are to them,they still can't sense what colours really are.Of course,this doesnt mean colours dont exist,but to these set of people,colours exist only to the point explainable or can be inferred by them.
That it can't be perceived by the sense doesn't mean its non-existence.In the realm of physics,mathematics can enable us infer concepts which can't be perceived or measured...thou the problem this presents is that even false results in reality could hold true in maths.Hence,if it can never be perceived then we can never know for sure what's true.

I absolutely love your input

johnydon22:
As a literal philosophical representation, materialists can be termed Reductionists and materialism termed Reductionism because the fundamental principle behind this school of thought basically reduces everything to what can be perceived.

A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of throught?
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment section)

What is matter?

johnydon22:
A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of thought?

I think a school of thought that reduces everything down to the materials that are perceptible to your 5 senses is a good thing. You're basically saying, "show me", which ought to be the very least one can do, show you, unless they're asking you to believe them, to wit I expect your "good luck with that".

"Making things perceptible to the 5 senses", is a fundamental aspect of all sciences with "prove it" in maths, breaking compounds down to their individual elements then atoms with it's nucleus and nuclei, proton, electrons and lepton in Chemistry; dissection in Biology and in the natural science where matter itself and its motion, and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and forces are studied. Breaking things down to their basic fundamentals helps in understanding how to put things together and without it we'd likely be unable to be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth and subdue it as we've done.

But what about if your eyes aren't good enough to see what I'm showing you, or if I were incapable of reducing what I want to show to you to materials that are perceptible to your 5 senses (and I do mean things I see and not things I make up in my head or I am lying), what happens then?

johnydon22:
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment section)

The school of thought that believes that, 'what you cannot perceive with your 5 sense does not exist", is illogical, twice. In fact, thrice! First, to hold any belief is illogical. Second, to hold an illogical belief is illogical. And third, why, if I may ask, are you only perceiving with 5 senses? Don't you have any other senses?

As said above you could be blind and not see, or I might be insufficiently intelligent to show it to you. Besides, the sum of parts is not the whole not to talk of its fundamentals. And the objective world does not disappear because subjects don't see it!

Emmaomotob:
What is matter?

Anything with weight and occupies space

johnydon22:
Anything with weight and occupies space

I asked for the definition of MATTER, you introduced two new philosophical entities! What is WEIGHT? What is SPACE? And is it possible to grasp their essence independent of THOUGHT?

Emmaomotob:
I asked for the definition of MATTER, you introduced two new philosophical entities! What is WEIGHT? What is SPACE? And is it possible to grasp their essence independent of THOUGHT?

Well, that's the definition of MATTER, bro

Ynsai:
Well, that's the definition of MATTER, bro

You have not even proven that matter exists, yet you are stating with certainty that that is its definition! Though we can state that a definition contains that which proves the existence of the definiendum , but it is in the nature of a good definition to be in the simplest form possible. What does he mean by ANYTHING? What is WEIGHT? What is SPACE? What does he mean by ''anything OCCUPYING space''?

Emmaomotob:
You have not even proven that matter exists, yet you are stating with certainty that that is its definition! Though we can state that a definition contains that which proves the existence of the definiendum , but it is in the nature of a good definition to be in the simplest form possible. What does he mean by ANYTHING? What is WEIGHT? What is SPACE? What does he mean by ''anything OCCUPYING space''?

Anything that has mass and occupy space is MATTER e.g yourself... That is, you have mass and occupy space... so you are MATTER, bro and I think you exist.
A body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing is called Weight.
A continues area of expanse which is free, available or unoccupied is called SPACE.

Ynsai:
Anything that has mass and occupy space is MATTER e.g yourself... That is, you have mass and occupy space... so you are MATTER, bro and I think you exist.
A body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing is called Weight.
A continues area of expanse which is free, available or unoccupied is called SPACE.

By THOUGHT, I understand an activity of a conscious thing.
By CONSCIOUS I mean a state that arises when a thing contemplates itself or a thing which it conceives as separate from itself with an idea of itself as the cause.
By THING I understand that which is considered separate and whole.


THIS IS WHAT I CONSIDER A SIMPLE DEFINITION, WHICH FULLY EXPLAINS THE DEFINIENDUM AND FROM WHICH ITS EXISTENCE CAN BE DEDUCED. WITH THIS AS A MODEL, CAN YOU TRY AGAIN?

johnydon22:
The problem isn't about making the claim but rather sufficient proof for a materialists on a material claim.

You asked for the proof, you should be able to know what type of proof should suffice.

So, what type of proof do you ask for when asking for proof on something supposedly imperceptible to your senses?

Primary onus of proof is on the claimant - undisputed.

One who asks for proof should have an idea of what type of proof is required to validly answer their skepticism.

Or is "prove it" just a meaningless term?

The same way you prove theorems in math. I don't have to tell you the kind of proof. You create your own proof.

Why was this your thread closed johnydon22?

https://www.nairaland.com/3004923/science-section-library

budaatum:
Why was this your thread closed johnydon22?

https://www.nairaland.com/3004923/science-section-library

So that not just anybody can post on it

Been thinking of this and must say there are very many important things that are immaterial that not giving them significant consideration would significantly reduce our ability to multiply. We sure wouldn't be ruling over anything, not even our own lives. Imagine. I cannot provide "weight and space" for my desires and my feelings and emotions, so my desires and my feelings and emotions do not exist! I can't provide it for gravity either but I don't deny it's existence to immense economic advantage. Then there's things like power, value, morals, freewill and ignorance that do not have weight nor space unless one stretches definitions far east. Is it, 'power, value, morals, freewill and ignorance occupy space and have weight', or 'they are immaterial and therefore do not exist'?

"Humans don't live by bread alone, they need understanding too", is how Christ put it. But I think he meant "Superhumans", humans do well on materials alone. At least they think they do judging by their 5 senses perception. Understanding, however, has no weight nor space but you need more than 5 senses to perceive it, at least, sometimes.

johnydon22:
So that not just anybody can post on it

I was searching for the new discovery of a black hole and came across it. We don't have a thread on it in the religious section!

johnydon22:
As a literal philosophical representation, materialists can be termed Reductionists and materialism termed Reductionism because the fundamental principle behind this school of thought basically reduces everything to what can be perceived.

A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of throught?
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment section)

materialism is rather limited and closed minded in some ways, I am of the belief as humans our mind are quite limited in perceiving all that exists in time and space

Acepen:
materialism is rather limited and closed minded in some ways, I am of the belief as humans our mind are quite limited in perceiving all that exists in time and space

If you imagine the sheer absurdity of blackholes yet human mind was able to imagine this before we even had the slightest incline on it's possibility.

I also think materialism is close minded.

johnydon22:
If you imagine the sheer absurdity of blackholes yet human mind was able to imagine this before we even had the slightest incline on it's possibility.

I also think materialism is close minded.

Yeah but the blackhole is material and was theorized and had evidence for its existence before it was photographed.

LordReed:
Yeah but the blackhole is material and was theorized and had evidence for its existence before it was photographed.

Read what i wrote again

johnydon22:
Read what i wrote again

You called something absurd and I gave it a little more context. How absurd is something that had evidence for its existence even before it was seen? Then it is actually seen.