I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[marplots]

What arguments do you have that are better than what you have seen? It seems to me that any argument you have would fall before your insistence that we can't know things exist unless we can see them.

That's why materialism must be assumed, not proven. It's the same way for idealism. Either can generate a coherent picture of how things work, and as has been stated in this thread already, are largely interchangeable.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Is there any evidence whatsoever of material things that are contingent on thought? That is, brought into reality by a thinking mind? I'd like to know how to do this, so that I can wish myself a million dollars into existence.

 

[bruto]

This is actually good point *(with one exception). It points to something like Spinozan neutral monism being a more sensible position. I agree that dualism is a ludicrous position as it necessarily sums the assumptions of both pure idealism and pure materialism and is therefore the least parsimonious of the three.

Where idealism beats materialism on the grounds of parsimony is that the only thing of which anyone can be sure is that they are having a conscious experience and therefore consciousness certainly exists. The most skeptical position, the one with no assumptions, would be solipsism. However, most of us at least opt for the assumption that those other people who look me are having a similar conscious experience and are not automata in my dream. That would only be assuming more instances of the same category of thing and would be all that is required to sustain a naive idealism.

A more refined idealism would need to account for a shared experience. Berkeley suggested that everything existed in the mind of God. This is a troublesome term that has as many meanings as there are people. Aldous Huxley preferred the term 'mind at large' where mind and consciousness are assumed to be interchangeable terms. In this case, all that exists would do so within mind at large and individual conscious entities, parts of the overall mind, would share experiences over which they had limited volition. This form of idealism holds that there is no need to propose any category of stuff other than consciousness as the unique carrier of reality and experience.

Pure materialism must posit that there is something outside consciousness which exists independent of it. Despite arguments above, this cannot be known since knowing is a conscious experience and therefore nothing outside consciousness can be known. This was pointed out by Robin.

Further to its invoking a different category of stuff (a larger leap of assumption than the idealism I outlined above), materialism must take a further leap to suggest that material which exists outside of consciousness is the source of consciousness.

Not only does materialism introduce more entities than idealism but it seeks to explain the only thing which we can be sure exists, conscious experience, in terms of an entity that can never be known. It therefore explains the tangible in terms of an imaginary basis; a position that many people mistakenly believe is attributable to idealism.

In fact, for the reasons above, materialism is inferior to idealism in terms of parsimony.

Not necessarily. We know that consciousness occurs. Philosophers have not been entirely in agreement about whether this means it exists. In the mean time, though it certainly is simple to say that there is nothing at all in existence but consciousness, it leaves many other questions to answer, and by requiring a god requires also that many of those answers will always be those of faith and speculation.

Parsimony is preferable to complexity when all else is equal, but the parsimony of throwing everything you don't know into a box and taping it shut is not, I think, its best application.

 

[tsig]

My objection is to the arguments presented I have responded to, specifically, not materialism, a view I hold myself. If an argument doesn't stand up, I can't support it merely because it reaches the conclusion I hold.

Bad arguments be bad.

What arguments do you have that are better than what you have seen? It seems to me that any argument you have would fall before your insistence that we can't know things exist unless we can see them.

That's why materialism must be assumed, not proven. It's the same way for idealism. Either can generate a coherent picture of how things work, and as has been stated in this thread already, are largely interchangeable.

So you don't actually have any arguments, just assertions.

When you wake up is the world pretty much like it was when you went to sleep?

 

[marplots]

So you don't actually have any arguments, just assertions.

When you wake up is the world pretty much like it was when you went to sleep?

It seems so, yes. How does it seem on your end?

 

[PixyMisa]

Nah, as soon as you look at them they take on a state consistent with having been boiling.

Which means that unwatched pots boil.

I've never seen that.

That's because you haven't looked.

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.

And yet, unwatched pots boil.

 

[PixyMisa]

Where idealism beats materialism on the grounds of parsimony

Wrong.

is that the only thing of which anyone can be sure is that they are having a conscious experience and therefore consciousness certainly exists. The most skeptical position, the one with no assumptions, would be solipsism.

Which is parsimonious, but useless.

However, most of us at least opt for the assumption that those other people who look me are having a similar conscious experience and are not automata in my dream.

Which is not parsimonious, and also does not explain what we observe.

The parsimony of idealism is identical to that of materialism. However, materialism matches our observations, and idealism contradicts them. Bit of a failure there, if you ask anyone who lives in the real world.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's a materialist assumption that matter gives rise to consciousness.

Wrong. It is the materialist assumption that matter is what exists. It follows from that that matter gives rise to consciousness.

This is equivalent to, and the inverse of, the idealist position, except for the fact that materialism is right and idealism is wrong.

Whatever type of universe we live in that process is certainly not observed.

This is the least accurate statement ever written down by anyone in human history.

Of all the observations ever made, that matter gives rise to mind is the most universal, the most carefully examined, the most thoroughly tested. It is the one thing that everyone knows, the one thing everyone shares.

Day is light, night is dark, fire is hot, water is wet: These are mere haphazard guesswork against this central fact our our existence, that matter gives rise to mind.

Every newborn infant, every sad passing, every night carousing, every night abed, every waking moment of human history is a test of this premise, and every single time it is confirmed.

This is why I said that Bernardo had abandoned not just evidence, but the very notion of evidence, because if you value observation in any way whatsoever, this fact is inescapable.

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't say "is false," I said "is generally false." Usually false. Most unfalsifiable claims are false.

It's not the unfalsifiability that makes them false, it's the falseness that makes them false, and the unfalsifiability comes from the claimants poorly trying to defend them.

As a skeptical rule of thumb rather than a philosophical principle - yes.

 

[MikeG]

This is actually good point *(with one exception). It points to something like Spinozan neutral monism being a more sensible position............
In fact, for the reasons above, materialism is inferior to idealism in terms of parsimony.

Are you sure you aren't Bernardo?

 

[tsig]

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.

When you wake up is the world pretty much like it was when you went to sleep?

It seems so, yes. How does it seem on your end?

You just refuted you own hilited statement.

 

[annnnoid]

Wrong. It is the materialist assumption that matter is what exists. It follows from that that matter gives rise to consciousness.

This is equivalent to, and the inverse of, the idealist position, except for the fact that materialism is right and idealism is wrong.


This is the least accurate statement ever written down by anyone in human history.

Of all the observations ever made, that matter gives rise to mind is the most universal, the most carefully examined, the most thoroughly tested. It is the one thing that everyone knows, the one thing everyone shares.

Day is light, night is dark, fire is hot, water is wet: These are mere haphazard guesswork against this central fact our our existence, that matter gives rise to mind.

Every newborn infant, every sad passing, every night carousing, every night abed, every waking moment of human history is a test of this premise, and every single time it is confirmed.

This is why I said that Bernardo had abandoned not just evidence, but the very notion of evidence, because if you value observation in any way whatsoever, this fact is inescapable.

Wow!....defensive much?

And the evidence…since you require constant reminders… comes to the following unconditional conclusion:

“We have no idea how consciousness (mind) emerges out of the physical activity of the brain.”

“..but…but…but…but...it’s been carefully examined…I sawed it with my own eyes… sure as fire is hot, ice is cold, snot is sticky, crap is stinky, dribble is dribbly, toe-jam is jammy, vomit is just vomitty!’

…how, precisely, can something claim to have been ‘carefully examined’ when no-one can claim to know how it happens?????

(…and, JFYI, the word ‘computation’ does not, in fact, constitute an explanation…it is merely an excuse for the lack of one)

Quite obviously…a metaphysics that insists on a known ( consciousness) AND an unknowable condition (matter) is LESS parsimonious than a metaphysics that posits a singular ‘knowable’ phenomena (idealism).

<snip>

one is less than two.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Rule 0.

 

[Craig4]

Wow!....defensive much?

And the evidence…since you require constant reminders… comes to the following unconditional conclusion:

“We have no idea how consciousness (mind) emerges out of the physical activity of the brain.”

“..but…but…but…but...it’s been carefully examined…I sawed it with my own eyes… sure as fire is hot, ice is cold, snot is sticky, crap is stinky, dribble is dribbly, toe-jam is jammy, vomit is just vomitty!’

…how, precisely, can something claim to have been ‘carefully examined’ when no-one can claim to know how it happens?????

(…and, JFYI, the word ‘computation’ does not, in fact, constitute an explanation…it is merely an excuse for the lack of one)

Quite obviously…a metaphysics that insists on a known ( consciousness) AND an unknowable condition (matter) is LESS parsimonious than a metaphysics that posits a singular ‘knowable’ phenomena (idealism).

<snip>


Second, how would you explain that consciousness clearly changes after brain injury or illness? If consciousness does not derive from the material (as in brain matter) trauma to that matter should not impact a person's mind, spirit, consciousness or fill in fuzzy feel good word for the results of brain function here.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited, Rule 11.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wow!....defensive much?

Not defensive, just right.

And the evidence…

Strawmen and quote-mining are logical fallacies, which means they do not constitute evidence for your argument.

It is an established fact that consciousness is brain function.

Quite obviously…a metaphysics that insists on a known ( consciousness) AND an unknowable condition (matter) is LESS parsimonious than a metaphysics that posits a singular ‘knowable’ phenomena (idealism).

I've already established that this claim - that idealism is more parsimonious than materialism - is untrue. I've also shown that idealism is simply wrong: It does not match anything we observe.

Again, these are facts. It's up to you how you deal with them.

 

[tsig]

Wow!....defensive much?

And the evidence…since you require constant reminders… comes to the following unconditional conclusion:

“We I have no idea how consciousness (mind) emerges out of the physical activity of the brain.”

“..but…but…but…but...it’s been carefully examined…I sawed it with my own eyes… sure as fire is hot, ice is cold, snot is sticky, crap is stinky, dribble is dribbly, toe-jam is jammy, vomit is just vomitty!’
…how, precisely, can something claim to have been ‘carefully examined’ when no-one can claim to know how it happens?????

(…and, JFYI, the word ‘computation’ does not, in fact, constitute an explanation…it is merely an excuse for the lack of one)

Quite obviously…a metaphysics that insists on a known ( consciousness) AND an unknowable condition (matter) is LESS parsimonious than a metaphysics that posits a singular ‘knowable’ phenomena (idealism).

<snip>

one is less than two.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Rule 0.

FTFY

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

[Belz...]

I've already established that this claim - that idealism is more parsimonious than materialism - is untrue. I've also shown that idealism is simply wrong: It does not match anything we observe.

You'd think that would convince some people...

 

[John Jones]

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

HoHoHo! HaHaHa!

Jabba. Listen up!

 

[John Jones]

I don't think you completely have a handle on what "parsimonious" means.

"Skeptical" either.

 

[John Jones]

Nope, still working on it.

Then why the cock-sure hubris that it will soon be published?

 

[Myriad]

By the same parsimony argument:

We know that the only way we ever hear sound is via our ears. Therefore the most parsimonious explanation for sound is that all sound occurs in ears. A refined idealism would need to account for shared sounds heard by many. To allow this, we can propose that all sound occurs in the ears of God, but that's problematic; a better description is "ears at large" in which all sound exists. There is therefore no need to propose any category of sonic phenomena other than ears as the unique carrier of all sound.

Thus, idealism is more parsimonious than materialistic interpretations that require external things other than ears to exist as generators and transmitters of sound.