I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[PixyMisa]

All,
In all sincerity now; this isn't to rattle the cage. It would strike any neutral observer how much of what has been posted in this thread so far isn't skepticism at all.

Correct. But not the posts you believe.

 

[tsig]

This thread is a good example of why incorrectly applying philosophical concepts is bunk.

As well as some pretty good examples of how to counter these concepts (using philosophy).

In terms of all the "bashing your face in a brick wall/stubbing your toe/throwing a rock at you head"-style counter arguments:

Reacting to a stimulus does not prove that a stimulus is "material" and not imagined.

Experiencing pain does not mean that the source is "material" and not imagined.
This does not mean that the Idealism espoused by Bernardo is true, but those counter arguments are quite weak.

A better counter argument is the one suggested by PixyMisa/Dessi (and others I think): namely that Bernardo's Idealism is functionally indistinct from Materialism, and thus pointless.

After you throw out experience to show reality is real what do you have left?

Once we can ignore the phenomena around us and the evidence of the senses there's nothing left but fantasy.

 

[tsig]

And this entire thread is a good example of why Philosophy is bunk.

But, but nobody can prove to me there is any reality therefore I'm entitled to spout any sort of woo I want, and p-zombies and qualia and red isn't real.

(Woops, I might have just argued myself out of existence)

 

[tsig]

If it's hypocritical to make an argument for something you don't believe in, I fear both our courts and universities are full of such animals.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

"Belief and certainty clog the gears of analytical discussion." - Marplots

"Citing oneself as an authority is a sign of an oversize ego" -tsig

 

[Dubious Dick]

Dear Bernardo,

Regarding materialism and consciousness. Forget all that philosophical waffle.

1. Take one well contructed brick wall.
2. Take one head (yours)
3. Propel head against brick wall repeatedly.
4. Report back concerning the effects of material reality on consciousness.

Sweet. An actual experiment.

...

OK, deed is done. Turns out the wall was a figment of my imagining after all.

I assume the results of my experiment have settled the issue to your satisfaction?

Of course, the criticism levelled at this argument is flawed, because all one has to do is have the wall independently verified as such, and the same for the physical effects of the experiment.

It may seem sadly simplistic to those who prefer semantic philosophical onanism. Tough!

 

[marplots]

Deleted, off topic.

 

[marplots]

Of course, the criticism levelled at this argument is flawed, because all one has to do is have the wall independently verified as such, and the same for the physical effects of the experiment.

It may seem sadly simplistic to those who prefer semantic philosophical onanism. Tough!

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?

Wasn't verifying an independent reality the point of the exercise?

No need to respond, I've already constructed the entire conversation. Naturally, I came out on top. Well, except for that one minor point where I had to accept I had misquoted Hegel.

Other than that, we both enjoyed ourselves and retired for tea and scones.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we can't agree on what level reality exists any discussion becomes pointless.

We can't talk if there is literally no shared ground to talk on.

So if you want to doubt reality at its most basic nature, regardless of what philosophical label you slap on it, fine.

But we can't have a discussion about it on any meaningful level.

 

[Spindrift]

If we can't agree on what level reality exists any discussion becomes pointless.

We can't talk if there is literally no shared ground to talk on.

So if you want to doubt reality at its most basic nature, regardless of what philosophical label you slap on it, fine.

But we can't have a discussion about it on any meaningful level.

Sure you can. Just agree with everything Bernardo says. He can't be refuted since you're not allowed to take evidence into account. It's all self-evident.

 

[Doubt]

If any form of idealism is true, then what is the source of this "consciousness"?

If idealism is true than what is the purpose of time and why does it always move forward and not backwards? The forward direction of time makes sense as a property of a material universe that we cannot change since we are a part of it. If time is a property of consciousness then why can we not move both forwards and backwards in it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No I'm actually not being snarky I'm being dead serious. We keep having these "Reality isn't real I just saw the Matrix" navel gazing threads and I really do want to know how the script goes in people's heads that start them.

What exactly are we supposed to be discussing here? Proving reality exists to someone that doesn't think it does? How?

 

[tsig]

No I'm actually not being snarky I'm being dead serious. We keep having these "Reality isn't real I just saw the Matrix" navel gazing threads and I really do want to know how the script goes in people's heads that start them.

What exactly are we supposed to be discussing here? Proving reality exists to someone that doesn't think it does? How?

I think the baseball bat test is appropriate, you hit them in the head with it and ask them "What struck you?"

Repeat as needed.

 

[tsig]

Sweet. An actual experiment.

...
OK, deed is done. Turns out the wall was a figment of my imagining after all.
I assume the results of my experiment have settled the issue to your satisfaction?

You're going to prove that reality is an illusion by changing the brick wall into an illusion?

 

[Tricky]

For a teaser to entice people to buy the book, Bernardo, why don't you treat us to one of your brilliant refutations. Then at least we'll have something to discuss.

 

[Dancing David]

As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney.

Well it is a moot point... the universe behaves as though it is material, regardless of teh ontology of the universe. So it may be godthought, dancing energy , butterfly dreams or whatever Mind theory you are proposing.

It is a moot point the universe appears to be material:

One challenge, show any evidence of consciousness absent an organic brain.

So the second challenge, show any evidence that the universe does not behave as though it is material.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

So where do you think the existence in which you exist, exists? Either it "exists" in your head or there is an external reality.

Personally, I'm going with Alice.

 

[Belz...]

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.

More parsimonious and skeptical ? You must be joking.

Reality is clearly independant of consciousness.

 

[Spindrift]

Well it is a moot point... the universe behaves as though it is material, regardless of teh ontology of the universe. So it may be godthought, dancing energy , butterfly dreams or whatever Mind theory you are proposing.

It is a moot point the universe appears to be material:

One challenge, show any evidence of consciousness absent an organic brain.

So the second challenge, show any evidence that the universe does not behave as though it is material.

Sorry you're not allowed to ask for evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Although you have to wait for the publication of my new book to see the refutation of all these 16 arguments, I can guarantee to you that only smoldering ashes will be left of them after I am done. ;-)

People have been trying that for thousands of years, and yet physicalism is inching towards total victory.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing to add to the list? Nada?

Why bother ? Items 1 to 3 completely kill your hypothesis.

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.

Who's assuming ? We can tell that consciousness is in biology. It's a conclusion, not an axiom.