• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

Dancing David said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are fields material?

In some ways, the idea of what materialism captures is extended to whatever we can propose to explain the universe around us. Quantum foam anyone?

If I am going to say that "material" means anything I have discovered and anything I ever will discover, the demand to show something immaterial seems a bit disingenuous. As soon as I show it, materialism expands to enclose it as simply a previously unknown part of the package.

Still, as a logical exercise, I am drawn to make some case or other, even though I am a materialist. So, try this:

1) The past does not exist - we can neither observe it nor interact with it directly. It can only be assumed through rational deduction.
2) Cause and effect, a root concept in materialism, demands that the present relies on the past.
3) The present is constructed from non-existent parts and processes.
4) This argument is symmetrical for the future as well.
5) Hence, materialism is grounded in the immaterial.
 
Myriad said:
Specifically, consider that result at a time when the relevant parameters have been specified but the computation has not yet begun. The result is absolutely predictable, in the sense that only one correct result is possible and that anyone doing the required computation correctly is guaranteed to get that result. But the result is not yet known to any human.

There are two possibilities: either that result, at that time, is already in some consciousness (which, since it's not yet in any human consciousness, must mean it is in some other nonhuman e.g. "universal" consciousness), or it is not.

If it is not, then when the computation is complete (or perhaps, when a human looks at the results), it must become so. That is, it becomes part of consciousness because the computation was performed. Consciousness of the result is in (caused by) the result, which is consistent with materialism but inconsistent with the monistic view of the result being within (caused by) consciousness.
Click to expand...

I don't think this works the way you intended. All that is required is that consciousness isn't static, but can grow and change. In that sense, the calculation is being done "on consciousness" insofar as the future holds something different (a consciousness with the answer) than it did before. Or, perhaps more clearly, consciousness can operate on itself to generate the "outside" required. This is mirrored when I reflect on my own inner world, so that I may simultaneously be the teacher and the student. In this way, the concept of the Mandelbrot set itself and the procedure to get the results springs from consciousness. Further, how do we know the answer is correct? We know it because, in some fashion, we consciously do the calculation.

The idea that something can grow to be "more conscious" doesn't seem foreign in a life that includes development from a child to an adult.

Consider your experiment as the mental event I just experienced reading it. I certainly didn't know where you were going until I read it, so the text is an example of what it demonstrates and the process can be the same - consciousness that is self-reflecting and generative, blossoming to become (and thence create) more than before.

Of course, the opposite is implied too: things might get dumbed down!

ETA: Just thought of this. Is the Mandelbrot set a material object? If it isn't, on what grounds can it say anything about materialism?
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Hardly. I don't think reality is an illusion. I just think the experiment doesn't address the issue.

All the "I refute it thus" rejoinders are addressing a different question than the question being asked. The brick wall bit just highlights the fact that what we call reality seems real. Idealism accepts that already. Their challenge is to show some logical path supporting the notion of materialism, not to demonstrate the fidelity of the illusion.

It's not even an esoteric question. It's a question at the heart of scientific investigation and daily life. "I know I can be fooled. I know I make mistakes. On what basis can I be confident that this time I'm not?"

In many ways, being a skeptic and critical thinker amounts to gathering the tools to test our relationship between the "really real" and the, "what I take to be the case." We collect fallacies and are interested in paradoxes because we value the lessons they capture. Idealism merely extends this critique to the root level.

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming there is some "really real" beyond what we perceive with our senses?
 
marplots said:
Are fields material?

In some ways, the idea of what materialism captures is extended to whatever we can propose to explain the universe around us. Quantum foam anyone?

If I am going to say that "material" means anything I have discovered and anything I ever will discover, the demand to show something immaterial seems a bit disingenuous. As soon as I show it, materialism expands to enclose it as simply a previously unknown part of the package.

Still, as a logical exercise, I am drawn to make some case or other, even though I am a materialist. So, try this:

1) The past does not exist - we can neither observe it nor interact with it directly. It can only be assumed through rational deduction.
2) Cause and effect, a root concept in materialism, demands that the present relies on the past.
3) The present is constructed from non-existent parts and processes.
4) This argument is symmetrical for the future as well.
5) Hence, materialism is grounded in the immaterial.
Click to expand...

In that case the present could not exist since it is always past by the time we sense it.
 
Amd we're back out beyond the event horizon the formless again. It's been too long.
 
Bernardo, maybe you missed the reply I made yesterday so I'll ask the questions again...

Brian-M said:
Can you define the phrase "carrier of reality" for us?
That term means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

Brian-M said:
Possibly you could define consciousness for us too, because I'm pretty sure that you're using the term to mean something different from the way I use it.
Click to expand...


I hope you can clear this up for us, because it's hard to have an intelligent discussion about something if nobody else knows what the terms you're using are intended to mean.

(Note: I've fixed a couple of typos I just noticed in my quote, but I doubt they could have caused any confusion in the original post.)
 
Belz... said:
Actually, it can, as I've said earlier. Thing exist independant of all consciousnesses because they keep existing when no one is watching.
Click to expand...

If no one is watching, how could this be empirically justified?

Didn't Schrodinger point this out with his cat?
 
PixyMisa said:
Unwatched pots boil.
Click to expand...

I've never seen that.

If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation. Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.

Somehow, abandoning the gold standard in service of preserving it seems odd.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
ETA: Just thought of this. Is the Mandelbrot set a material object?
Click to expand...


No.

Nor is it a mental object, prior to it being computed and imaged. (And its entirety, in full detail, can never be so.)

If it isn't, on what grounds can it say anything about materialism?
Click to expand...


It can expose a false dichotomy.
 
Myriad said:
No.

Nor is it a mental object, prior to it being computed and imaged. (And its entirety, in full detail, can never be so.)

It can expose a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

It seems to me there is no difference in your Mandelbrot example than in any framing that includes an unknowable future. Consider that the future will happen - at least some version of it. It doesn't yet exist, but will. We are not privy to the results until the future arrives. Now, if idealism can reconcile this, why not the Mandelbrot set? (It's the same problem, because the future is calculated by the present and the calculation must be done for the future to arrive.)
 
marplots said:
If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation.
Click to expand...

It's consistent, based on prior observation.

Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.
Click to expand...
Pots exist. Boiling exists. God is a problem.
 
Donn said:
It's consistent, based on prior observation.


Pots exist. Boiling exists. God is a problem.
Click to expand...

Proof by prior observation introduces a new principle, extending experiential reality by adding an element of reliability and time-permanence. It also brings into play the idea of categories, such that identification as a class member (things which behave this way and not that) is important. Lots to wrestle with there, once you go from direct experience to indirect. Hume beat this to death.

In short, it moves from "I saw it happen" to "I assume it happened because I see the result and assume the world works in a certain way."

An interesting thing happens when we are presented with counter examples. We have a choice between, "I miscategorized the event (and the cause)," or, "the world works differently than I thought before."
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
I've never seen that.

If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation. Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.

Somehow, abandoning the gold standard in service of preserving it seems odd.
Click to expand...

So in your world things exist as long as someone is looking at them then cease to exist when no one is looking at them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom