I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Robin]

The "You can't prove reality exists" is the nuclear hand grenade of arguments because while it might blow up opponents arguments it also destroys your own.

Idealists don't say that reality doesn't exist, they just have a different opinion about the nature of reality.

 

[The Man]

I am not sure why rocks would hurt less or rain would be less uncomfortable under Idealism than it would under Materialism.

Are you sure why they wouldn't? Which is to say that if they are functionally indistinguishable then what is the difference other then the assumptions required? Isn’t a reality that is materialistic as well as functionally materialistic more, well, parsimonious than an idealistic reality that just seems to be functionally materialistic? Without solipsism (as I think the OP asserts) idealism gets even less “parsimonious” as some overseeing, greater or combined consciousness has to be introduced, and evidently just assumed. However, the problem still remains, why should there be any apparent material restrictions at all, if even idealism wasn’t at least functionally materialistic?

 

[Robin]

Are you sure why they wouldn't? Which is to say that if they are functionally indistinguishable then what is the difference other then the assumptions required? Isn’t a reality that is materialistic as well as functionally materialistic more, well, parsimonious than an idealistic reality that just seems to be functionally materialistic? Without solipsism (as I think the OP asserts) idealism gets even less “parsimonious” as some overseeing, greater or combined consciousness has to be introduced, and evidently just assumed. However, the problem still remains, why should there be any apparent material restrictions at all, if even idealism wasn’t at least functionally materialistic?

If you check back you will see that I have already made the point that Materialism is more parsimonious.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again why are you arguing with figments of your imagination over a computer that doesn't exist?

 

[The Man]

If you check back you will see that I have already made the point that Materialism is more parsimonious.

No thanks, I'm more than willing to take your word for that particularly as parsimony wasn't the primary point. So do you agree that the fact that we apparently have to behave as if reality is materialistic is a strong argument for materialism? One I don't think the OP addresses (that I will check back on) while the act of writing a book (even on idealism) supports.

Eta: items 5 and 14 do seem to acknowledge it.

5) It is not parsimonious to say that reality is in consciousness, because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.

14) Why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world?

 

[Robin]

No thanks, I'm more than willing to take your word for that particularly as parsimony wasn't the primary point

So why did you bring it up?

So do you agree that the fact that we apparently have to behave as if reality is materialistic is a strong argument for materialism?

No, as I pointed out it is not a good argument for Materialism unless you can show me some way that I would behave differently if Idealism were the case.

You may as well make an argument for Idealism by saying that the Materialist must behave as though Idealism was true.

 

[Myriad]

"ears at large"? Do we also see by "eyes at large" and smell by "noses at large"?

My nose is already on the large side, which makes me that much closer to the Universal Nose.

...Anyhow, my point was that that makes just as much sense as the Idealist "consciousness at large" or "mind at large" hypothesis. "The only way we X is through Y, therefore Y subsumes all X everywhere" no longer seems such a parsimonious assumption when, for example, X is sound perception and Y is ears, or X is movement and Y is muscle contraction.

 

[Robin]

Again why are you arguing with figments of your imagination over a computer that doesn't exist?

Was that remark addressed to me or someone else? Although I can't see how it relates even tangentially to anything I said. On the other hand your previous reply to me didn't either

 

[The Man]

So why did you bring it up?

Why not? It was an argument the OP made.

No, as I pointed out it is not a good argument for Materialism unless you can show me some way that I would behave differently if Idealism were the case.

You may as well make an argument for Idealism by saying that the Materialist must behave as though Idealism was true.

That's the point and the difference, materialism doesn't have to behave as if idealism is true and would do quite fine without any from of idealism. However, the idealism we experience (if it is true) must be functionally materialistic (to at least some degree) or there would be no material restrictions. Just because idealism can behave as if materialism is true in no way means it must behave that way or that "Materialist must behave as though Idealism was true". One can do fine on it's own without the other.

 

[Myriad]

You may as well make an argument for Idealism by saying that the Materialist must behave as though Idealism was true.

Wouldn't behaving as if idealism were true involve things like appealing to the consciousness of the universal mind to stop contemplating that tiger that's threatening you, thus making it disappear, instead of running away?

 

[Robin]

That's the point and the difference, materialism doesn't have to behave as if idealism is true and would do quite fine without any from of idealism.

Similarly, an Idealist can simply behave as though Idealism was true and not bother with Materialism.

 

[Robin]

Wouldn't behaving as if idealism were true involve things like appealing to the consciousness of the universal mind to stop contemplating that tiger that's threatening you, thus making it disappear, instead of running away?

Not unless you had some reason to suppose the Universal Consciousness cared more about you than the tiger.

 

[Darat]

An ostensible definition is as good as any. Just spread out your hand on a table and start hitting it very hard with a hammer and keep telling yourself that you don't know the experience of consciousness.

So no definition?

 

[The Man]

Similarly, an Idealist can simply behave as though Idealism was true and not bother with Materialism.

Similarly? Where did I mention how a materialist “can simply behave”? So you're just going to focus on one sentence and pretend I didn't mention a difference even just in that first sentence? A rather idealistic approach. So are you claiming the type of idealism (if it is the case) we experience doesn't seem to be functionally materialistic?

 

[PixyMisa]

Similarly, an Idealist can simply behave as though Idealism was true and not bother with Materialism.

They could, yes. They'd be dead within minutes, but they could.

They don't. But they could.

 

[Belz...]

Why would you have evolved to instinctively make a material response to a material problem if the material is not real?

Why would you have evolved to anything if the material is not real?

Why anything?

Well, that's the problem: under idealism it's pretty much all in minds, so there's no evolution per se.

 

[The Man]

Imagine a reality that was functionally idealistic. Could make just a simple warning label somewhat problematic.

Caution!

Contains Corrosive Material!

Avoid contact with skin and eyes.

Wash thoroughly any affected areas.

If ingested, do not induce vomiting and seek medical help immediately.

If you have no idea what corrosive means then ignore these precautions.

If you do know what corrosive means and are now thinking about it just because this notice mentioned it then some of the corrosion you may now be experiencing may not be due to contact with this material.

Imagine you washed all affected areas thoroughly.

If ingestion was imagined, do not imagine inducing vomiting but do imagine medical help was promptly obtained.
​

 

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I am not sure why rocks would hurt less or rain would be less uncomfortable under Idealism than it would under Materialism.

Why would you have evolved to instinctively make a material response to a material problem if the material is not real?

Why would you have evolved to anything if the material is not real?

Why anything?

Seems the why is a separate question. Obviously if idealism rules, we've imagined a world which behaves like a material one. But I've never understood why that should be ironclad proof the world is material. It allows for that possibility, but doesn't exclude others.

At most, one can say materialism is a simpler explanation, but the simpler explanation isn't always the correct one, though it may be a good bet. But I don't see that it proves idealism as thoroughly wrong, as those who gloat about it think it does.

What I do think it does, is make idealism moot. Even if idealism is true, it reveals nothing about the world that can't be explained by materialism, so there's no point in spending time worrying about idealism. But that's different than proving idealism wrong.

 

[marplots]

What good does all the semantic shuffling around do?

I understand the complaint, but all I have to transmit my thoughts into others' heads are words. If there's a mismatch between what I intend and what is perceived, it seems reasonable to try and squeeze out the nuances.

It seems that all you want to do is play word games.

You can now play solitaire.

Isn't that what we always do, all the time?

The experience, from my end, isn't just one of finding out what someone else thinks about something, but to discover what I think as well. Before I type an answer or make a point, I do not know, specifically, what that point will be. At least in part, my posts arise unbidden and often surprise me as much as they must seem surprising to others. I think this must be why I participate - both the entertainment value and the self-discovery aspect.

What I don't know is if I already think the things I say or whether, if I didn't say them, I'd never think them at all.

 

[marplots]

Wouldn't behaving as if idealism were true involve things like appealing to the consciousness of the universal mind to stop contemplating that tiger that's threatening you, thus making it disappear, instead of running away?

I did this the other day. Only it was a snake instead of a tiger. The snake turned into a stick in the grass after some contemplation.