I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Bernardo]

As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream. This ontology is often called monistic idealism ...

Any philosophical position, including Idealism, that asserts that reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, is accurate to the extent that we have no other way of knowing anything. So your argument is coherent within the context in which it is formed, which is entirely subjective. For convenience we'll call this situation "subjective reality". As a consequence, contrary to what your challenge seems to suggest, the idealist cannot possibly form any refutation for the state existence that applies to things that exist beyond one's mind. We'll call that situation "objective reality".

The best any idealist can do is deny that objective reality exists, and that position wears very thin when we begin asking questions like, "How old is the universe?" and, "When did we humans first appear?" because for those realities to have happened in accordance with Idealism, our minds must have existed before Earth formed and life ( including us ) evolved, and frankly, that idea is just nonsense.

By assuming that consciousness is in biology, as opposed to biology in consciousness -- the latter being, of course, the necessary implication of the idealist position -- you are begging the question of materialism. To an idealist, biology is an image of certain processes in mind, which doesn't deny that there were other, older processes in mind before biology emerged. This is so basic it hurts.

An idealist denies what I call a strongly-objective reality: a reality outside consciousness. But an idealist -- for NOT being a solipsist -- acknowledges what I call a weakly-objective reality: a set of experiences that are shared by multiple human beings and other life forms. Notice that weak-objectivity does not imply strong-objectivity. The latter, as you acknowledged yourself, is a logical inference, not an empirical observation.

 

[Bernardo]

Not sure what "materialism" means, but I think "made of atoms" is a pretty good starting point. Apologies if I've misunderstand your definition of the word.

...

I believe this would sufficiently falsify the view that conscious experience uniquely escapes description in a material universe.

Thanks for your extensive response, I appreciate the time you took to craft it. I'll be frank: in my opinion you're so locked into the assumptions of materialism that it has become impossible for you to step back and tell fact from inference. It would require quite some dialogue to find some common ground. I'll limit myself here to pointing out that an idealist does not deny that our shared experiences -- that is, empirical reality -- unfold according to strict patterns and regularities. He or she doesn't deny that we can conceptualize and model those patterns and regularities in the form of basic building blocks and laws. But the idealist will consider an atom an image of a somewhat basic unit of perception, not of a world outside consciousness. Whatever else it may or may not be, everything you knew, know, or can ever know about an atom has been, is, or will be a content of your consciousness.

Ah, and the neural network visualization was cool. It brings back nice memories.

 

[Bernardo]

Again, it comes down to a claim that I am aware of something, but not aware of being aware of it.

OK, now you are aware of being aware of these letters on your screen.

As you read this next sentence, however, you begin to be aware of being aware of your breathing: the air flowing through your nostrils, the movements of your diaphragm, etc. Were you unconscious of your breathing a moment ago? Or just unaware of being conscious of it?

As you read this other sentence, you begin to be aware of being aware of the contents of your peripheral vision. Maybe a wall with smudges behind your screen, or a vase to the left, or a pen on the desk, whatever. Were you unconscious of the contents of your peripheral vision a moment ago? Or just unaware of being conscious of them?

Were Europeans unconscious of perspective before the renaissance? Or just unaware of being conscious of perspective, which was all around them since birth?

 

[Bernardo]

I'm confused, if reality is made up of human consciousness, why wouldn't that be anthropocentric? It would seem to be the most anthropocentric statement one could make.

I never said reality was made up of human consciousness. I said reality was in consciousness. Do you see how challenging it is for you to actually step back from materialist assumptions even for a moment, for the sake of argument? You cannot even visualize what it means for a human being to be in consciousness (like your dream character at night is in your consciousness, not the other way around), as opposed to consciousness being in a human being.

 

[Bernardo]

But, if Bernardo is correct, then we are all a product of his consciousness.

Do you really not understand the difference between idealism and solipsism? No, really?

 

[Bernardo]

Guys and girls, really, in all sincerity, can you think of another argument besides the 16 in the list in the OP? There is no need to defend it thoroughly, nor will I argue against it here. I just wonder if anyone can think of something else that I missed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why does that matter? If I duck, does that mean materialism is correct? If I don't duck, is it wrong?

No it just means you're a hypocrite spouting off something you don't really believe in. Usually to justify Woo.

 

[Bernardo]

I think the material and the non-material are interdependent.

Personally, I have no idea what this might mean. What's the difference between the two? To me, this sounds like an attempt to accommodate everyone's view at the expense of truth.

 

[Brainache]

Guys and girls, really, in all sincerity, can you think of another argument besides the 16 in the list in the OP? There is no need to defend it thoroughly, nor will I argue against it here. I just wonder if anyone can think of something else that I missed.

Materialism (via the theory of evolution) explains where Human Beings and hence human consciousness comes from. Does Idealism do that, or does the "Conscious Cosmos" just spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus or whatever?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Guys and girls, really, in all sincerity, can you think of another argument besides the 16 in the list in the OP? There is no need to defend it thoroughly, nor will I argue against it here. I just wonder if anyone can think of something else that I missed.

You're right. Your arguments against materialism is 100% airtight.

Therefore there is no material world.

Therefore you don't exist.

Therefore you never actually made those arguments.

Therefore I can safely ignore them seeing as how I can't be swayed by arguments made by figments of my imagination.

 

[PixyMisa]

Guys and girls, really, in all sincerity, can you think of another argument besides the 16 in the list in the OP? There is no need to defend it thoroughly, nor will I argue against it here. I just wonder if anyone can think of something else that I missed.

As I said: Your position is useless.

Dessi expanded on this point, to which you completely failed to respond, or, apparently, to understand.

 

[MikeG]

Guys and girls, really, in all sincerity, can you think of another argument besides the 16 in the list in the OP? There is no need to defend it thoroughly, nor will I argue against it here. I just wonder if anyone can think of something else that I missed.

It's amazing that you think we'd want to. You want us to publicise your book, visit your website, boost your google ratings.......AND help you construct straw men. You ask too much.

 

[asydhouse]

I love the way you guys always take the discussion totally away from the actual substance as soon as you feel cornered.

There is such a thing as an advance publishing agreement, you know? And the best publishers turn books around in only months.

You are asking us to do your work for you.

If you don't present your arguments, why should we waste our time trying to guess what is in your refutations of those arguments in your list, and then present our own arguments blind?

And on top of that, you seem to think we will fork over money to you for the privilege of reading your supposed refutations to our arguments?

Do you have any idea what a forum is for?

Hint: it's not for your one-sided manipulation and exploitation.

 

[Craig4]

Personally, I have no idea what this might mean. What's the difference between the two? To me, this sounds like an attempt to accommodate everyone's view at the expense of truth.

Is your contention then that I make up or create my own reality?

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you really not understand the difference between idealism and solipsism? No, really?

From what you have presented so far, there doesn't appear to be any. Your argument is a solipsistic argument, just not an honest one.

 

[PixyMisa]

Materialism (via the theory of evolution) explains where Human Beings and hence human consciousness comes from. Does Idealism do that, or does the "Conscious Cosmos" just spring fully formed from the brow of Zeus or whatever?

That's not the point of idealism. The point of idealism - well, the three points - are:

1. Deny the very notion of evidence.
2. Explain nothing.
3. Act smug.

 

[Robin]

OK, now you are aware of being aware of these letters on your screen.

As you read this next sentence, however, you begin to be aware of being aware of your breathing: the air flowing through your nostrils, the movements of your diaphragm, etc. Were you unconscious of your breathing a moment ago? Or just unaware of being conscious of it?

As you read this other sentence, you begin to be aware of being aware of the contents of your peripheral vision. Maybe a wall with smudges behind your screen, or a vase to the left, or a pen on the desk, whatever. Were you unconscious of the contents of your peripheral vision a moment ago? Or just unaware of being conscious of them?

Were Europeans unconscious of perspective before the renaissance? Or just unaware of being conscious of perspective, which was all around them since birth?

Well of course people were always aware of things in the distance being small, they just didn't know how to represent it in pictures.

I am aware of what I am aware of. I might walk the whole way to the station without being conscious of what I am doing.

If my attention is drawn to something then I become aware of it. The mind can process quite a good deal without my ever being conscious of the fact.

Are you suggesting that if I am aware of the genome of my staghorn fern, and that if I just concentrate hard enough I will be able to write down the sequence of base pairs?

 

[asydhouse]

Don't you think you might perhaps be projecting some of your own prejudices and expectations on me?

If you were to actually present an argument, we wouldn't have to project anything!

As to your publishing record, I find it strange that you can't even type the name of your publisher into this thread, as was requested earlier.

A simple list of titles, date of publication, and publisher would go some way to showing us that you are not the troll your posts in this thread so far seem to be demonstrating. (Or are you simply a disingenuous marketeer?)

 

[asydhouse]

How's this for your list?

The assumption that "Consciousness is the only carrier of reality anyone can ever know for sure; it is the one undeniable, empirical fact of existence." is false and has never been proven.

In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to assume that "being conscious" is any kind of evidence of anything at all.

Consciousness is so malleable, and so episodic (that is noncontinuous), that I would be more inclined to see it as an ephemeral occurrence "on the surface of" the material universe.

And that's what we appear to find, in fact. There's a universe. As time has gone on, the universe has become more and more complicated, and consciousness is just another phenomenon arising within the processes going on in the ongoing recomplications. As an ephemeral and episodic phenomenon, consciousness appears here and there, like dew in the morning, and evaporates again as conditions change.

Hey BERNARDO: notice how when Spindrift presented an idea, it brought forth further thinking and commentary on my part? That's how you learn what people think, by discussing things.

Being pumped for material for your sake, for material to put in your book, feels like being solicited by a whore on the street. No, that's unfair to prostitutes. Actually, it's more like being harassed in the street by an alcoholic beggar.

 

[PixyMisa]

If I duck, does that mean materialism is correct?

Yes.

The point being not that this proves materialism, because it's not something that can be proven; rather that materialism can explain why you ducked, where idealism cannot.

So idealism is, forever and always, useless. Even if some form of it were true (and naive versions of the sort Bernardo is presenting are certainly not) it would still be useless.