Topic: Do you consider yourself a strict materialist?

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 started this discussion 15 years ago #3,015

Do you? I definitely do not.

Poll option	Votes	Percentage	Graph
Yes	7	50%
No	7	50%

The Owl !yshAAUvyds joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #55,020

Define.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,024

whine counts as material

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,025

@55,020 (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
A strict materialist believes that everything in the universe and in the human experience can be explain by the pure hard sciences, and that nothing else does, or can, exist.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,029

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
DMâ„¢

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,030

@55,025 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)

> A strict materialist believes that everything in the universe and in the human experience can be explain by the pure hard sciences, and that nothing else does, or can, exist.

lol ghosts

!Aeris47Q2o replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,033

@previous (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)
I will rape you to death.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,035

@55,025 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Basically asking us if ghosts are real again?

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,036

@55,033 (!Aeris47Q2o)
lol ghosts and goblins and other things that don't exist

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,037

@55,035 (F)
No. I said nothing about ghosts. I am asking if you believe that it is even possible that anything at all (not only ghosts) can exist beyond the hard science. This could include many things, such as, for example, an intelligence behind the universe.

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,038

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
ghosts aren't real

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,039

@previous (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)
Yeah, I am not talking about ghosts. I am talking about scientific philosophy. Please stop derailing everything.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,040

Yes. I believe in the power of science and nothing else.

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,042

@55,039 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Just saying that ghosts don't exist. Because they don't.

The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,071

Nickalollyloff is a faggot.

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,073

@previous (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)

The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,077

@previous (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)

Evidence.

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,081

@previous (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)

The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,095

@previous (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)

Minichan was better when you weren't on it.

Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,096

@previous (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)

Leonidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,115

@OP

I thought you were at work. Maybe this is lunch hour.

totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #55,119

@55,095 (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
This.

totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,121

I am, but I try to keep an open mind.

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,122

@55,115 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
He doesn't really have a job. It's trolling.

Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,128

@previous (D)

How do you prove this?

All I know is that his whole multiple birthdates thing people claimed they found just proves to me he is an immortal vampyre like I've been saying.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,130

I, for one, enjoy Nick's presence. I hate to see this Britfag in-fighting. :'(

Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,139

@55,128 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
How do you not prove it?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #55,164

@55,025 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
That's kind of a weird definition. Thoughts exist; no one would deny that. You can't weigh a thought, though. Similarly, concepts like justice, fairness, liberty etc. exist as well; and though they are not able to be studied by the hard sciences, few materialists would deny their existence. I am a materialist in that I believe that all things have physical causes. Thoughts and concepts exist, but only in the minds of conscious beings, which are composed solely of matter.

tl;dr yes

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,693

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well, you see, a strict materialist would say that there are not really "thoughts" per se, but only the firing of neurons.

Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,699

@55,130 (J)
> I, for one, enjoy Nick's presence.
Seconded. Seconded so hard.

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,700

This is the third shtick violation in the span of 3 days.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,702

@55,699 (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)
I really do not mind Nick at all. I have forgiven him for the TC ionising thing. He is pretty funny.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,708

@55,693 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Well, yes. Thoughts are what happens when neurons fire in our brain.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,710

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That is strict materialism. Another belief is that thoughts are that, but also include some sort of inner, guiding intelligence behind them.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,711

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
That is a claim which would require some serious evidence to back up.

protip !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,715

@55,710 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
I do not see how those are mutually exclusive.

Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,718

@55,702 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
> I really do not mind Nick at all.
I'm not too sure he'd say the same for you, but okay, thanks for sharing.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,724

@55,715 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
That is the thing. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive, but a strict materialist does.

@previous (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)
Oh, he hates me. But I have discovered that life is too short and hard to hate people.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,728

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
> Oh, he hates me. But I have discovered that life is too short and hard to hate people.
That's why you so frequently embrace sK, timber, and ryan.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,731

@previous (M)
I do not hate anyone. I do not necessarily like everyone, but I do not hate anyone.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,732

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Actions speak louder than fists slamming on the keyboard

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,733

@previous (M)
So, back to strict materialism.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,735

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
What reason is there to suggest there's more/

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,739

@previous (M)
I am not sure. I guess that it is true, that we cannot observe more. Some people "feel" there is more. This gets to the basic philosophy of science: are our five senses enough to declare universal truths, or are there also other methods of deriving truth?

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,741

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
And what would those other methods be?

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,743

@previous (M)
Intuition, philosophy, history, thought, emotion, etc. The idea is: we humans believe and trust our five senses, which is fine and good. But, we also assume that only the five senses can observe truth. Some people believe that, for example, emotion can derive truth as well.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,745

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Those can all be explained through science. If we don't trust the five senses, how can we trust anything else, specifically emotion?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,746

@55,743 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
The 5 senses have consistently demonstrated that they can inform us of the true nature of reality. When has anything other than sensory perception been able to do that?

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,748

@55,745 (M)
We can trust the five senses, but how do we know that they are all that we can trust?

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,749

@55,746 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The five senses cannot, for example, perceive radiation. We have to build tools to do that. Yet, radiation is very real.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,752

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Radiation is indirectly perceivable through the senses. That's how we're able to measure and classify the different types of, say, electromagnetic radiation. Can we perceive it directly with our eyes? With the exception of visible light and infrared radiation, not really. Can we invent apparatuses that convert radiation into things which are intelligible to us via our 5 senses? Yes. Radiation is explainable in purely materialistic terms.

(Edited 33 seconds later.)

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,753

@55,749 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
So you're arguing for the materialist viewpoint now?

Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,755

@55,749 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
@55,752 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Also light is a form of radiation.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,756

@previous (M)
Notice I said:
> With the exception of visible light

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,759

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If a post is longer than a sentence, I stop reading.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,762

@55,752 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That is the thing. Indirect observation is a step away from the five senses, and that indirect observation requires thoughts and skill to make, which also are not the five senses.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,763

@55,759 (M)
What if I made the whole post one really long sentence; I never will terminate it, but rather, I will make extend it indefinitely using all the punctuation at my disposal: colons, semicolons, commas, ellipses, parentheses, etc.; but never shall I split this long sentence into pieces (that would defeat the purpose of this experiment), nor shall I make this sentence coherent; thus, my question at the end of the day is: would you still read a post that was one sentence long if the one sentence was really, really long?

Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,764

@55,699 (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)
How the fuck can you criticize DM for posting the same shit over and over, then turn around and say you like nick?

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,765

@55,763 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Run-ons aren't a toy, bud.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,767

@55,762 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
> Indirect observation is a step away from the five senses
No it's not, because we're still acquiring all the data we receive via our 5 senses. If I hold a magnifying glass up to a cup of water and see bacterium floating around in it, that is information I received via my senses. The fact that we need to augment our senses with powerful equipment does not change the fact that we are gathering the information through the use of our senses.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,770

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But it required thought (not one of the five senses) to build the machine.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,772

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
And thought can be observed by electrical and chemical interactions.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,773

@55,770 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
All conscious decisions require thought. I'm not using conscious thought to acquire the information though.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,774

@55,772 (M)
Actually no. Firing neurons cannot be observed without man-made machines, like an MRI.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,775

@55,773 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes you are, if you have to build a machine to observe something. You cannot build that machine without thinking.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,780

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
I agree. So what?

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,782

@55,774 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
MRI doesn't measure firing of neurons. It measures oxygen levels in the blood.

And using a device to measure something is consistent with the materialist viewpoint.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,783

@55,780 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So, that puts a step (thought, mechanical building) between the object observed, and the five senses. Thus, it is not direct observation by the five senses. Thus, it is not strictly materialist.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,784

@55,782 (M)
Precisely.

Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,786

@55,783 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
You've changed the definition of materialist.

Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,787

@55,764 (G)
Every time Nick posts; I laugh. Every time Depressionman posts (something related to the paranormal, stalking, food, alcohol, and shit); I want to slit my wrists. Although your point is a good one, the truth is that I have a hard-on for Nick--exempting him from my criticism.

tl;dr--I favor Nick.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,789

@55,786 (M)
How?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,793

@55,783 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Is someone who wears glasses constantly indirectly viewing the world?

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,795

@55,787 (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)

Maybe it's the frequency at which the two post. The threads Nick makes are very spaced out, but he always has something interesting to read. I like his recipe threads, plus he does act serious from time to time which is nice. :)

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,800

@55,793 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,808

@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree, then.

Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,809

@55,795 (J)
> Maybe it's the frequency at which the two post. The threads Nick makes are very spaced out [...]
Precisely.

Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,810

@55,808 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Fair enough.

protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,816

@55,787 (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)
> I have a hard-on

Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,820

@previous (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
That means boner.

Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,825

@55,809 (Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ)

I imagine that if DM just went anon for awhile that most people wouldn't notice anyway if he wasn't so keen on his shtick, but he is as well as using his nickname so I guess we'll never know.

Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,845

@previous (J)
> I imagine that if DM just went anon for awhile
Yeah, it's been recommended to him countless times already. It won't ever happen.
@55,816 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
Dot dot dot ... ... ...