I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[marplots]

And it does. People duck when you throw something at them. People look for cover when it starts raining. They get off the road when a car's coming.

They may profess idealism, but they act like materialists.

Because if you don't, you don't survive for very long.

But don't people also act as if their beliefs could shape the world? I present to you prayers to Jesus and "The Secret" as two of many, many examples.

Further, I don't see a direct link between beliefs and survival, since one of our key survival strategies is acting toward an uncertain future, one we craft and picture by way of beliefs about what may happen. In a very real sense, our imaginations are critical to survival - the hypothesis dies in our stead (as pointed out by Karl Popper).

I'd make the case that it is our mental life - surreal and imagined - that overshadows the mere material, animal lusts, and generates whatever it is we hold to be a good life.

 

[taygatayga]

The existence of materiel objects does not depend on human consciousness.

This is patently true. However, the argument in my post was that it cannot be shown to exist independently of consciousness. There is no reason to suppose that human beings are the only instances of consciousness.

 

[taygatayga]

Can you show a consciousness without matter?

What stuff do you suppose your thoughts are made of? Or your dreams?

 

[Robin]

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

They don't. But they could.

I wish people wouldn't be so vague about this. Just give an example of how someone, in your opinion, would behave if Idealism was true.

 

[Robin]

So no definition?

As I say, an ostensible definition is as good as any. Better in fact, than most.. I assume that you are still hammering away hard at your fingers and not knowing the experience of consciousness.

 

[ehcks]

What stuff do you suppose your thoughts are made of? Or your dreams?

Electrons and chemicals.

 

[Robin]

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.
​

I am taking this to mean that you can't answer the question about how one would behave differently under Idealism either.

 

[Robin]

Seems the why is a separate question. Obviously if idealism rules, we've imagined a world which behaves like a material one.

That includes the assumption that the world we experience behaves like a material world.

That, in turn, assumes that you can deduce something like a feeling of nausea from a set of equations. If you can't, then you can't conclude that a material world would contain a feeling of nausea.

 

[ehcks]

I am taking this to mean that you can't answer the question about how one would behave differently under Idealism either.

If the universe worked under a form of idealism where one's consciousness altered the universe around them, I would fly to work in the same way I fly in most of my dreams.

If the universe worked under a form of idealism where consciousness is the source of everything but is yet somehow unable to alter it, then there is no difference.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Yes. And on top of that, naive forms of materialism idealism like Bernardo's nonsense make claims that are simply untrue.

 

[PixyMisa]

But don't people also act as if their beliefs could shape the world? I present to you prayers to Jesus and "The Secret" as two of many, many examples.

Put someone's hand on a hot stove, and ask them to choose between (a) prayer and (b) moving their hand.

100% of people are materialists.

 

[marplots]

If the universe worked under a form of idealism where one's consciousness altered the universe around them, I would fly to work in the same way I fly in most of my dreams.

If the universe worked under a form of idealism where consciousness is the source of everything but is yet somehow unable to alter it, then there is no difference.

But isn't your consciousness altering the universe around you by way of posting on the forum? Is there some other author of your posts?

 

[Robin]

As I say, an ostensible definition is as good as any. Better in fact, than most.. I assume that you are still hammering away hard at your fingers and not knowing the experience of consciousness.

And while we are on the subject of definitions, what is the definition of 'material' that we are using for this debate?

 

[ehcks]

Put someone's hand on a hot stove, and ask them to choose between (a) prayer and (b) moving their hand.

100% of people are materialists.

Some people are faith healers, and have allowed their children to die because they believe praying hard enough is all they need to do. Recently, people have been sent to prison for child abuse for this.

At least some percent of people are incredibly stupid.

 

[Robin]

Put someone's hand on a hot stove, and ask them to choose between (a) prayer and (b) moving their hand.

100% of people are materialists.

Again I ask the question - why would the stove hurt less under Idealism?

An Idealist could equally say that a Materialist should say 'since it cannot be defined then there is no such thing as consciousness therefore this does not hurt'

100% of people are Idealists.

 

[ehcks]

But isn't your consciousness altering the universe around you by way of posting on the forum? Is there some other author of your posts?

Only in that it's my consciousness that decides on the letters of my keyboard I should tap with my fingers, that I should move the mouse to affect the pointer and click the Submit Reply button, sending electrons through wires and eventually causing pixels to appear on your monitor.

That consciousness being the effect of a collection of electrochemical signals in nerve cells in my brain.

So I suppose.

 

[ehcks]

Again I ask the question - why would the stove hurt less under Idealism?

An Idealist could equally say that a Materialist should say 'since it cannot be defined then there is no such thing as consciousness therefore this does not hurt'

100% of people are Idealists.

But it's not just the pain that's real. The water in your hand will begin to boil. Your cells rupture. Your skin burns off, then your nerves die. Actual chemical reactions occur because of the real heat.

If it were only in your head, then someone who doesn't understand chemistry would be immune to burns.

How many ancient humans who created fire burned themselves before they knew what fire was?

 

[taygatayga]

The parsimony of idealism is identical to that of materialism.

It clearly isn't. To reiterate the argument I outlined, any form of idealism starts from the conscious experience of the individual and assumes further instances of a similar entity. Materialism starts from conscious experience and posits an additional entity, material, that exists independent of consciousness and causes it. Idealism: 1 entity. Materialism: 2 entities.

However, materialism matches our observations, and idealism contradicts them.

In what way(s) does idealism contradict our observations?

Bit of a failure there, if you ask anyone who lives in the real world.

You're not the only poster who seems to think that an idealistic universe would not be real. Nothing about idealism denies the reality of material or sensation. It simply supposes that these things exist within consciousness.

 

[taygatayga]

If it were only in your head, then someone who doesn't understand chemistry would be immune to burns.

This is a materialist assumption. The idealist position supposes that your head is inside your mind which is a part of mind at large.

 

[taygatayga]

Put someone's hand on a hot stove, and ask them to choose between (a) prayer and (b) moving their hand.

100% of people are materialists.

If that's supposed to be an argument against idealism it's a strawman and a false dichotomy when idealism isn't represented by either of the options. Religion is not idealism.