Materialism is true
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge). This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis (e.g. by scientists). This is the primary source of empirical evidence. Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research.[2]
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.— Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities
Existence is the ontological property[1] of being,[2] with reference to the ability of an entity to, directly or indirectly, interact with the physical or, especially in idealistic worldviews, mental reality.Materialism holds that the only things that exist are matter and energy, that all things are composed of material, that all actions require energy, and that all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of the interaction of matter.Dialectical materialism does not make a distinction between being and existence, and defines it as the objective reality of various forms of matter.[2]
Idealism holds that the only things that exist are thoughts and ideas, while the material world is secondary.[3][4] In idealism, existence is sometimes contrasted with transcendence, the ability to go beyond the limits of existence.[2] As a form of epistemological idealism, rationalism interprets existence as cognizable and rational, all things as composed of strings of reasoning, requiring an associated idea of the thing, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of an understanding of the imprint from the noumenal world in which lies beyond the thing-in-itself.
In scholasticism, existence of a thing is not derived from its essence and is determined by the creative volition of God, the dichotomy of existence and essence demonstrates that the dualism of the created universe is only resolvable through God.[2] Empiricism recognizes existence of singular facts, which are not derivable and which are observable through empirical knowledge.
The exact definition of existence is one of the most important and fundamental topics of ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what things or entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such things or entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
A syllogism is a systematic representation of a single logical inference. It has three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The parts are defined this way:
- The major premise contains a term from the predicate of the conclusion
- The minor premise contains a term from the subject of the conclusion
- The conclusion combines major and minor premise
When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly constructed, a syllogism is an ironclad logical argument.
The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.
The material world, in any proof-based sense of interpreting it, is itself proving that there is immaterial aspects to it, given that the value of material information is solely based upon the immaterial garnering of knowledge.
The material is a means to an immaterial end, no matter how we interpret it or use it.
The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.
physicalADJECTIVE‘a range of physical and mental challenges’1.1 Involving bodily contact or activity.
physicalADJECTIVE2 Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Material (adjective): Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
Matter: physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
Voting PolicyThe voting policy is a subset of the Code of Conduct (COC) Policy.I. Sufficient VotesA sufficient vote is one that states why one debater was better than the other in a particular respect and explains why the voter thought that. The last part of that definition is crucial. It is not sufficient to merely state that "Pro had better arguments", because nothing in that statement explains why Pro had better arguments. The requirements for a sufficient vote are explained in more detail below. Votes that are reported and which are deemed insufficient will be deleted.
Pro set up basic logic reasoning for why the immaterial doesn’t exist, and can’t be shown. Not a great start, but enough to meet his initial burden of proof.
Con argues that knowledge is immaterial, he doesn’t explain why he comes to that conclusion, or the reasons that he can consider knowledge immaterial rather than a product of the material brain - he just seems to clip in the conclusion somewhere around in C4.
Pro casts doubt by stating that knowledge is a mere product of the material brain and con has to show they’re separate.
Cons final round does a little bit better, showing that emotions and feelings are interpretations and thus non physical. It’s unrefuted due to the conflict. So arguments have to go to con.
Conduct to con for forfeit
Arguments: This one was close. In the end, I was left more convinced that the "proof of materialism" was in itself, not materialistic, and since we can experience that it must be real. This is a bit shaky, and pro even contested this idea by claiming that consciousness is immaterial, however they didn't attempt to back up their position when it really counted.
Conduct: Awarding the conduct to Con because Pro forfeited R4.
Spelling and grammar: Both had decent spelling and grammar, therefore it's a tie.
Reliable sources: Pro only used 1 single source in his debate and it was from a wiki page, Con not only used a wider variety of more trustworthy sources but used his sources in his argument better than pro did as pro throughout the debate mostly used anecdotes. Therefore con has better sources.
Conduct: Pro ff the last round while Con didn't. Therefore Con by default had better conduct.
Convincing arguments: Both made decent points, however in the final round Con absoulutely destroyed most of Pro's argument on this point.
"There is a missing link, even in the Harvard-supported research into proving consciousness to be physical, to identify what exactly knowledge known to the conscious being is and what the emotions experienced turn into from 'hormones' into genuinely felt sensations."
Con than stated,
"There is absolutely no way to explain it is in a physical sense because while you can prove consciousness to be materialistic in the sense of this definition, you cannot explain where, how or when knowledge is or feelings are 'operating' or absolutely tangible in a physical sense for the conscious being to 'access' with their conscious thinking. Instead, only the 'why' and the 'what' are explainable, meaning it isn't entirely unreal but it lacks any physicality."
- This statement alone while doesn't 100 % prove that materialism doesn't exist, it does provide reasoble doubt on the entire concept of materialism. And since all Con had too do was to provide reasonable doubt, Con easily won the debate in terms of convincing arguments.
Argument points.
Pro:
1. Only material is observable
Pro use sound strong inductive reasoning (everything ever observed is material) to reach a probabilistic conclusion. This meets the Burden of Proof
2. Only material is necessary
Pro did not meet the burden of proof here because pro did not address how abstracts could be material or unnecessary in all cases
3. Only material is sensical
Same problem as the last statement. Pro did not explain how abstracts how abstracts could be material or arbitrary in all cases.
4. Only material is tangible
This is basically the same as the first argument, except it address the sensory aspect of observation. So it also meets the BOP
5. Only the material exist.
Pro's argument is true by definition here. Although, it's a tad redundant since anything that exists is necessarily material. This is a tautology.
Con:
Con did not use proper structure in any of the syllogisms, so they are all invalid. I'm going off of the actual rules for categorical syllogism.
Major Premise (MP): Proving things in a non-physical way can still be valid proof.
Minor Premise (mP): Material things can be proven to exist by physical means only.
Conclusion (and also Contention so the symbol will be 'C' as my Conclusions will be my actual Contentions/Points of argumentation)...
C1: The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.
Here, Con did not follow the rule of even distribution nor did Con use the proper wording for the arguments themselves. A properly distributed argument with valid language looks like this.
1. All A's are B's
2. Some B's are C's
C. Therefore, some A's are C's
Furthermore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. This is why the distribution is necessary, to gain logical connectivity. Since all of Con's subsequent premises rely on the first conclusion and also commit the same error in structure by not using the even distribution, Con's entire set of syllogisms and subsequent arguments defending them are also invalid. This was Can's entire argument.
After weighing both arguments, I find that Pro has met the BoP of proving that materialism is true. Con was not able to meet the BoP on the contrary nor was Con able to point out any flaws in Pro's arguments.
Sources.
So according to the rules of voting, I have to provide at least one source, and also describe their net impact on both side and then compare them.
Pro's sources were centered around defining things in order to show the truth of the claim. In particular, Pro sourced a Wiki on Empirical Evidence which help to demonstrate the nature of what is and is not observable and what can and can't be evidenced. This was a key point in the debate. So this source was specifically useful. Overall, I would say that pros sources had a net positive impact and no particular source was unreliable.
Con's sources were a couple of definitions, a guide to syllogisms, and an article about a study. The definitions were helpful for clearing up terms in the debate. The guide to syllogisms was accurate. The article about the study in particular was a dubious source that merely quoted data from a study without showing the methodology. I think this source hurt Con a bit in terms of credibility. Con also claimed that this source helped to demonstrate the metaphysical by saying that it proved "sensory". But the study never mentions anything about the metaphysical at all.
Overall. Pro ends up with the better sources because Con's sources ended up being a net loss due to the study.
Spelling and Grammar.
Both sides formatted their arguments in a way that was easy to read. Neither side made any noticeable error and all definitions were well understood. I call tie on this.
Conduct.
Neither side was rude.
Rules say I can award conduct on a single forfeit if argument points were award or an explanation was posed for not awarding. Since Pro forfeit the crucial final round and all other things were equal, I award conduct to Con
Good debate. I hope this was a better vote
I proved an immaterial realm is necessitated for Pro to justify voting for him. You came up with your own arguments against it, in ways that Pro never brought up.
If the other debate has Rounds after and never points out the weakness of my syllogisms, you cannot (well the lack voting rules say you can so let's say rather shouldn't) tear them apart when he conceded it all was plausible if knowledge was proven to be immaterial, even partially.
How would you have done so... or is it top secret?
That doesn't matter. My job as a voter is to address how strong your arguments were. Your syllogisms were poorly structured. Even though pro accepted C1, that doesn't change the fact that the structure was invalid. C1 can be true and your structure can be invalid at the same time. Furthermore, all of your syllogisms had the same problem, so having C1 would just get you caught up at C2 instead.
I didn't forfeit for the stupid reasons you think I just didn't get to it on time. I would have been perfectly happy to attack your shite arguments.
Why did you forfeit Round 3 if you had any logical avenues left?
Stop bitching just because the actual person who is correct is in the lead for once.
You debunked me backing my C1, that even Pro explicitly concedes to in his R2, by bringing your own logic and arguments into the RFD.
You'll not get this one removed, because cherrypicking is allowed and considered subjective interpretation of the voter that is valid but I know objectively that I didn't misplay at all. It made perfect sense how MP and mP of C1 led to it. Pro agreed to the logic but disagreed that knowledge was immaterial which I proved was true in my R2.
Nonsense. Your Round 2 and 3 arguments are simply counterpoints to defend your Round 1 argument, which I debunked. Don't get mad at me because you didn't use syllogisms properly. I addressed the main arguments as per the voting rules and your subsequent arguments did nothing to revive your main arguments at all.
Also would like your feedback, WSA.
Please vote here if you have time and are interested in an alternative way to prove dualism that doesn't require disproving the physical aspects of consciousness.
I know you'll vote but tagging to remind in advance.
Thanks
Nice cherrypicking and ignoring my Round 2 and 3 for the arguments vote.
Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 point to pro for arguments, 2 points to con for sources, and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action:
(1) In order to award argument point, the voter must:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
2) Sources are insufficiently explained. In order to award sources, the voter must:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
The voter fails to do these things thus is removed
Yeah I'll vote.
Here's a philosophy debate where I debated an interesting troll-angle to make Pro have to admit they are wrong if they want to win.
You guys read this if you want to see how to escape seemingly unwinnable situations, as well.
Will appreciate a vote here, it's a fun read where you will probably think Type1 actually had me screwed from Round 1 but realise, in pleasant surprise, what I do later on.