Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
The problem with roboshark's argument is that he presupposes that the burden of proof is on the person who asserts that we are more than just atoms bouncing around (and, based on the first post, I'm assuming he's counting property dualists as well as substance dualists in this category). But it seems to me that in fact the burden of proof is on the reductionist. The natural tendency is to believe that we have something called a 'mind', and that its properties are quite different from the properties of the stuff we call 'matter'. This can be illustrated by the poster's first post -- (s)he only started thinking this way after (s)he had been educated to do so.
|
Journeyman made an explict statement that materialism was false, but provided no real argument.
"I'm still experiencing things in a manner that goes beyond atomic billiard balls reacting to one another."
Roboshark pointed out that this was essentialy an argument from ignorance. He did not attempt to argue materialism is true, merely that Journeyman provided no argument that it was necessarily false.