User whom started this thread (Screen Name/User ID):
Date of posting:
08 Sep 2010
Link(URL): (#25)

"Meleagar" wrote: If a deterministic materialist says, then, that the reason they are arguing is for the purpose of finding truth, or to prove to others a truth, or even to enjoy the argument, they have referred to a stolen concept, because intent and purpose and even "truth" are explanatory modalities of free will, not matter behaving according to physics

Physics exist because of the reality and the existence of space does not conflict with our understanding. The understanding and explanations of the “deterministic materialist” which you have referred to above may try to analysis the world systematically. The presentations derived from their Free Will do not interfere with the reality. Hence, the reality or physics does not collide with any human interpretations. Our perceptions change the ways we see things. It provides us new scopes of our universe and the outside world. Our minds are interconnected with the physical world makes metaphysics more applicable than any other philosophies survived through time. Undoubtedly, physical presence always takes the lead

"Meleagar" wrote: Physics provides no intent, and no purpose; the only explanans physics has to offer is the mathematical, operational descriptions of gravity, mass, trajectory, spin, charge, entropy, etc. Truth, morality, intent, and purpose are not commodities of material quanta, and so can offer no sufficient explanation for anything the deterministic materialist is trying to explain

Nothing out of the natural rules. The planetary gravitational forces are the extensions of the gravity on our planet. For which we have to understand our universe through experiments and observations. Pure guesses and imaginations do not help much to understand the true nature of our world (this planet) as well as the universe. Philosophy must have a solid grounds i.e. facts.

"Meleagar" wrote: The deterministic materialist has no "reason" (intent) for making any argument, nor any "purpose"; they are making their argument because trajectories and states of their particular quanta produce the sounds they make or the words they write. Nothing more, nothing less. Their argument is a state of matter and contains no intrinsic purpose, intent, truth, or logic, any more than a rock contains those commodities.

As I mentioned before, philosophy does sound. It sounds only if it works. It can overcome criticizes from others because it is real. A Chinese proverb saying, “Pure Gold does not fear of furnace.” Please if philosophers and scientists do not have courage to put forward their own ideas or what they believed in, even our ideas are brand new or seem to be insane, we may have no more progresses. From when, philosophy become history? Admiring the glories of the philosophers in the past and quoting their words without the courage to put forward innovative ideas, concepts and hypotheses.

Please make some efforts to make philosophy “sound”.
I’m here because I am real. Philosophies have to be practical.

"Tfindlay" wrote: Why not? Material quanta do not have a life force inherent in them so, according to your reasoning, life can't exist. But life does exist, not because of the inherent properties of atoms and molecules but because of the interactions among them.

All life comes from existing life. Even the first manmade stem cell, it has to be copied from another living cell. Hence, "lives have hierarchies" is a very logical assumption. The interactions of molecules do not necessarily form new life forms.

"Tfindlay" wrote: Truth, morality, intent, and purpose are not inherent in material quanta. They are products of the interaction of these quanta.

Truth is reality. It is independent from our minds. Purposes and morality vary. However, they also depend on the when and where you were born.

"Meleagar" wrote: Affirming the consequent again, and you're just ignoring the fact that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between phenomena that is the inevitable product of brute physical forces, and the free will intention of an acausal agency. Using the same word to describe both is at best erroneous, at worst intellectual deceit.

Words are limited to your own interpretations. Consequences have to be judged from independent events. Partially agree with you because physical differences are ironic.

"Meleagar" wrote: Unless your argument is that brute physics has generated an acauasal, libertarian free will, using the same word to describe both kinds of morality, intent, purpose and will is erroneous.

As above, physical presence restricted Free Will. The God is the manipulator from birth. Natural role decided how our world looks like till now.

"Meleagar" wrote: I doubt that. Ooops. You're wrong - it is doubtable.


"Meleagar" wrote: Facts must have solid grounds in philosophy or else there is no heuristic available to find or establish facts. All that we call "reality", and the means by which we establish evidence and inferences, is rooted in our philosophy of what our observations mean, and how we go about conducting valid research. You have the cart before the horse; all that we call facts about the physical are the product of philosophy; philosophy is not the product of physical facts. Logic informs evidence; evidence doesn't inform logic.

Then we have the “carrots” (facts) before the “horse” (philosophy) getting all into the goal without realizing what happening around. Landscapes change. Our world is no longer the one it used to be. Then philosophy is only high sounding nothing. You don’t see the great historical figures and giants in philosophy talking about the reality in real world. That’s why now I can declare our world is mentally dead. PHILOSOPHY IS DEAD.

"Meleagar" wrote: There is no way to define if something "works" unless one has a philosophy about what "working" means.

It works with a complete set of theories that really work in our world. You guys are jailing yourselves and buried your philosophies in the soils. You are living in your “inside” world. You know what really work in our world contributes to our progresses. Again, I can say “Philosophy Is Dead”.

"Meleagar "wrote: I agree that a philosophy should be practical, but one should also understand that philosphy informs our view of the world, not vice versa. There are an infinite number of ways to view and interpret the world, some more practical than others.

It depends on our perceptions and our views, of course. The ways to interpret the world are many, truth is always one.

Who claimed to be a philosopher, the real one, neither admiring the glory in the past nor quoting the words of the great philosophers. They are the ones who want to contribute the world with real rewards.

Those who stay your “inside world” and away from the “outside world” only remain students.

Philosophers are talking about reality. It has only one meaning and that is.

For a Better World
Teru Wong