I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Brian-M]

Except that physicalism doesn't add extra unknown entities.

except for physicality (aka matter), besides that no

No, not except for matter. Matter isn't an unknown entity.
We know it's there because we can observe it and interact with it.

at some point every ontology boils down to "(fill in blanks) just is"

More accurate to to say: at some point every ontology boils down to "We don't know why that is."

We're stopping at "we don't know why the material universe is".

Bernado is essentially saying that "the material world appears to exist because it somehow manifests from consciousness", and "we don't know why consciousness is".

It's not the "we don't know why consciousness is" part that's the problem. It's the claim that "the material world appears to exist because it somehow manifests from consciousness" that we're objecting to, because this is a completely unsupported assertion.

It make more sense to simply stop at "we don't know why the material universe is" than trying to answer it with a wild guess about something for which we have no evidence and explains nothing.

 

[ehcks]

This is why I should leave these science threads alone. Someone always says what I would have wanted to say if I knew how to say it.

 

[Nonpareil]

You guys are totally nuts - but there's no shame in that.

And you are wrong. Not only that, but you are willfully wrong; you refuse to engage in actual conversation on the subject, instead resulting to insults and dancing about the actual arguments supplied to you.

There is some shame in that.

 

[SusanB-M1]

tsig... the presumption of agency is deep woven in the human mind.

I like that - noted down in list of succinct summaries of facts to quote at woo adherents on another forum. Mind you, there's not much hope of effecting a change, but I'm an optimist!

 

[punshhh]

No. We appear to be in a place filled with stuff. We call the place "the universe" and the stuff "matter."

Yes, this stuff extends to the limits of what we can detect, which is where the materialists place a cut off and say there is nothing else, because we cannot detect it.

Materialism accepts that the stuff is stuff.

It also, (well around here anyways) states that there is nothing else*, in the absence of evidence.

Idealism proposes some outside force against all evidence and without even a clear concept or definition.

Not an outside force, an underlying force, a foundational force. It has been clearly defined, what has not been defined is the mechanism by which the stuffs appears and persists. This is nothing new though, because the materialists have not defined the mechanism by which the stuff appears and persists either.


*nothing else beyond what we can detect, sounds like navel gazing.

 

[punshhh]

Still wrong.

No. Wrong.

The physical world is material. It is not impossible for the physical world to appear to be material under idealism, but there is absolutely no reason why this would be so. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a physical world under idealism at all. There is absolutely no reason under idealism for there to be anything.

All the idealist can do is make excuses, and infinitum and ad nauseam.

No you are mistaken here, the philosophical principle of idealism does not require any difference in the form or manifestation of physical material, in relation to the materialist description.

I can understand your reluctance to admit this, because your entire argument is rendered impotent.

Yes. The materialists are right and the idealists are wrong.

Says PixyMisa.

Yes at first sight an observer might well agree. But on further rational investigation, an observer would realise that it requires caveats which render any attempts to address the argument impotent. Leaving the only rationally balanced position that we humans from our limited understanding of the existence we find ourselves in, don't know how or where stuff comes from, or how it persists. Pick any ontology you wish, provided it has a philosophical basis, it is just as likely as any other to be the case.

 

[ehcks]

Yes, this stuff extends to the limits of what we can detect, which is where the materialists place a cut off and say there is nothing else, because we cannot detect it.

If something can't be detected, then it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. We detect things by looking at how they interact with other things. An undetectable object does not interact with other objects, and therefore doesn't matter.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, this stuff extends to the limits of what we can detect, which is where the materialists place a cut off and say there is nothing else, because we cannot detect it.

No.

It also, (well around here anyways) states that there is nothing else*, in the absence of evidence.

No.

Not an outside force, an underlying force, a foundational force.

No.

It has been clearly defined

No.

what has not been defined is the mechanism by which the stuffs appears and persists.

That too.

This is nothing new though, because the materialists have not defined the mechanism by which the stuff appears and persists either.

The difference is that the materialists are right.

 

[marplots]

The difference is that the materialists are right.

Well, that settles it then.

 

[PixyMisa]

No you are mistaken here

Wrong.

the philosophical principle of idealism does not require any difference in the form or manifestation of physical material, in relation to the materialist description.

That's the point. It doesn't require that the material act like material. It doesn't require that it doesn't. It doesn't require anything, except that the material arise from the mental.

And of course we observe the exact opposite of this. All the idealists can do is pile up the excuses.

Yes at first sight an observer might well agree. But on further rational investigation, an observer would realise that it requires caveats which render any attempts to address the argument impotent.

No.

Leaving the only rationally balanced position that we humans from our limited understanding of the existence we find ourselves in, don't know how or where stuff comes from, or how it persists. Pick any ontology you wish, provided it has a philosophical basis, it is just as likely as any other to be the case.

Except that materialism is right and idealism is wrong, and dualism is logically incoherent.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, that settles it then.

The statement is unimportant; it's the fact that matters.

If you want to argue against materialism here, on the end product of hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, feel free. We'll act in accordance. That is, point and laugh.

 

[marplots]

Except that materialism is right and idealism is wrong, and dualism is logically incoherent.

I'd like to suggest another possibility - that the method we are using to understand the world doesn't work as well as we'd like. Perhaps the tool, logic, is wrong in some fundamental way.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'd like to suggest another possibility - that the method we are using to understand the world doesn't work as well as we'd like. Perhaps the tool, logic, is wrong in some fundamental way.

You owe me a million dollars.

 

[ehcks]

I'd like to suggest another possibility - that the method we are using to understand the world doesn't work as well as we'd like. Perhaps the tool, logic, is wrong in some fundamental way.

Logic is fine. The error is in the mind. The automatic belief in external agency is a fine evolutionary advantage when you have predators actively hunting you. It turns into a barrier to the advancement of knowledge when you don't.

 

[Belz...]

you are saying matter just is . . . there's no shame in that

You are jumping all over the place. Do you agree that physicalism/materialism does not add unknown entities, unlike idealism ?

 

[Belz...]

I'd like to suggest another possibility - that the method we are using to understand the world doesn't work as well as we'd like.

No, it works perfectly well, as evidenced by the machine you used to type that post.

 

[marplots]

You owe me a million dollars.

I'll get right on that.

 

[tsig]

I'd like to suggest another possibility - that the method we are using to understand the world doesn't work as well as we'd like. Perhaps the tool, logic, is wrong in some fundamental way.

We are using the five senses, do you have another way? Until you propose some way to test these musings then all you have is mental masturbation and your "deep" thoughts are as shallow as a puddle.

 

[Pup]

We are using the five senses, do you have another way? Until you propose some way to test these musings then all you have is mental masturbation and your "deep" thoughts are as shallow as a puddle.

That's my stance. There's no way to prove idealism isn't true. But since materialism seems to be the best way to understand the world, we might as well ignore idealism and proceed with the assumption that materialism is the way to proceed, unless there's evidence otherwise. What problem can be solved better by assuming idealism rather than materialism?

 

[marplots]

We are using the five senses, do you have another way? Until you propose some way to test these musings then all you have is mental masturbation and your "deep" thoughts are as shallow as a puddle.

Surely we'd be interested in the limits inherent in any approach, wouldn't we? Not to do so strikes me as dishonest, much like not being allowed to question the Bible.