I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[bruto]

Why would my presumption have any sway over them? They'd say, "Prove it."

The point was that the material universe isn't a solution to a problem at all - it exists or it doesn't, but its existence is orthogonal to the problem-solution pair. So asking, "What problem doesn't idealism have a solution for?" doesn't really go anywhere. It's a challenge without a point. Materialism does fine as well, whether or not it solves any problems.

Do you read your own posts? You suggested that the presumption that Pluto does not have a back side poses no problem. Now I don't know much, but I am pretty sure that if you did not presume planets are solid and roughly spherical and have a back side, a number of problems of celestial mechanics would occur.

 

[Belz...]

He said "I don't suppose I could toss out the back side of Pluto as a materialist simply because it didn't solve a problem." I'm not sure what he means by that, but I don't read it the way you do, Bruto.

 

[PixyMisa]

None, I'm a materialist. My problem is with bad arguments. To mischaracterize idealism as some kind of smoke and mirrors is incorrect. It's a valid philosophical position, worth considering.

It's a valid philosophical position that happens to be wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

One thing that has become apparent in reading this topic is that many (not all) materialist skeptics neither understand materialism nor the definition of skepticism and that they tend to beg the question by failing to recognise that their position includes the assumption that material reality is exclusively a property of a materialist universe while anything in consciousness is not reality.

No.

 

[Dancing David]

again, this is a strawman - I don't know any reasonable individual who would suggest that the brain has little or nothing to do with the mechanics of subjective experience . . . I am skeptical that the current research is showing us anything re consciousness, where it comes from and how it emerges . . . the research is just twitches or whack-mole-pop-neuroscience that will soon be regarded as a naive beginning - or even quackery.

The research shows consciousness comes from brain functions, maybe you don't ever look into neurology, but any evidence that consciousness does not come from brain, has yet to be presented.

You doubt... so how much reading on neurology and perception have you actually done?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Yep, but it still acts as though it is material.

 

[Dancing David]

except for physicality (aka matter), besides that no

Are you saying the universe does not act like matter?

 

[Dancing David]

I should say up front that I am agnostic re the dichotomy of material vs consciousness as fundamental substrate - and that the question is likely a red-herring. The successes we've had in putting a man on the moon and finding a cure for polio (for example) are due to the methods of quantitative measurement - - and these methods are also agnostic re the dichotomy of material vs consciousness as fundamental substrate.

So when Millikan measured the mass of an electron, that was what, from your agnostic stance?

It is a measurement of theoretical particle that seems to have certain properties, yes or no?

 

[marplots]

Do you read your own posts? You suggested that the presumption that Pluto does not have a back side poses no problem. Now I don't know much, but I am pretty sure that if you did not presume planets are solid and roughly spherical and have a back side, a number of problems of celestial mechanics would occur.

So we need to check? The fact is we don't need to check to believe materialism is true. We assume Pluto has a back side and it doesn't concern us because there's no problem before us that it addresses.

It's the same all around me. I'm not constantly checking things to see if they are still there. But as I said, the situation is the same under materialism or idealism.

 

[Belz...]

We assume Pluto has a back side and it doesn't concern us because there's no problem before us that it addresses.

No, we conclude that Pluto has a back side because all the other planets, which we can see rotate, have one, and because our calculations don't work if it doesn't.

 

[Lowpro]

So we need to check? The fact is we don't need to check to believe materialism is true. We assume Pluto has a back side and it doesn't concern us because there's no problem before us that it addresses.

It's the same all around me. I'm not constantly checking things to see if they are still there. But as I said, the situation is the same under materialism or idealism.

From an ontological standpoint this is correct.

 

[Lowpro]

No, we conclude that Pluto has a back side because all the other planets, which we can see rotate, have one, and because our calculations don't work if it doesn't.

Might I offer my interpretation. Empirically Pluto can be inferred to have a back side. It's beyond likelihood that it would not.

But materialism would not be invalid if it didn't have a back side for some reason. It would just mean there's something required to explain it and that the explanation would be within the purview of materialism.

That's how I interpreted what he was saying.

 

[PixyMisa]

So we need to check? The fact is we don't need to check to believe materialism is true. We assume Pluto has a back side and it doesn't concern us because there's no problem before us that it addresses.

That's wrong in just about every way it could be wrong.

We conclude (we don't assume, we conclude) that Pluto is roughly spherical because (a) it's circular in cross-section as far as we can tell, (b) it has another body in orbit around it, (c) all other such situations involve roughly spherical bodies, and (d) our models of gravity would have to be completely wrong for the situation to be otherwise, and they're not wrong.

It's the same all around me. I'm not constantly checking things to see if they are still there. But as I said, the situation is the same under materialism or idealism.

No it's not. There is absolutely no reason for there to be anything material under idealism in the first place. There is absolutely no reason to expect material things to behave consistently if they do exist.

 

[PixyMisa]

Might I offer my interpretation. Empirically Pluto can be inferred to have a back side. It's beyond likelihood that it would not.

But materialism would not be invalid if it didn't have a back side for some reason. It would just mean there's something required to explain it and that the explanation would be within the purview of materialism.

That's how I interpreted what he was saying.

That much is true. But under idealism there is no reason for Pluto to have a "back side". It could be a flat disk. It could be an illusion. It could be anything, or nothing, at all.

 

[Lowpro]

That much is true. But under idealism there is no reason for Pluto to have a "back side". It could be a flat disk. It could be an illusion. It could be anything, or nothing, at all.

To be honest I don't even know what idealism as an ontology would get you because it, and I don't even know how to make this sensible..., takes the experience (which is the "mind") and calls that reality. Thing is, depending on how fast and loose you want to play with this, all reality and information should be consistent anyways so it's as if materialism is part of the experience in idealism.

I seriously don't know how to phrase that, but my biggest issue with that is that the mind becomes the schmoo. There is no way to take any measurement here because the game is rigged. How the hell can you take this ontology and then suppose the mind anyways.

 

[PixyMisa]

Both materialism and idealism assume that others are having a similar experience to our own but they have different ways to view it: materialists suppose that we are separate instances of consciousness experiencing the material world in which we exist, idealists suppose that we are foci of a single consciousness in which the material world exists.

Just on that point: If that's what idealists suppose, then they are wrong. We know where our conscious minds come from, and they come from our material brains. They're not "foci" of anything. No matter what the fundamental nature of reality may be, that form of idealism is false-to-fact.

 

[PixyMisa]

To be honest I don't even know what idealism as an ontology would get you because it, and I don't even know how to make this sensible..., takes the experience (which is the "mind") and calls that reality. Thing is, depending on how fast and loose you want to play with this, all reality and information should be consistent anyways so it's as if materialism is part of the experience in idealism.

I seriously don't know how to phrase that, but my biggest issue with that is that the mind becomes the schmoo. There is no way to take any measurement here because the game is rigged. How the hell can you take this ontology and then suppose the mind anyways.

Yeah. There are some things that might be called idealism that make sense - not to say that they are necessarily true, but they're not obviously false, nor nonsensical. If the Universe is fundamentally mathematical, or information, or computation, then the material world we observe, and the minds that arise from our material world, could arise from that and everything would be consistent.

But saying that "mind" is what exist, and then handwaving both the material Universe we observe and the fact that we don't observe "mind" but distinct and isolated minds - and then claiming that this is more parsimonious... Yeah, no. Just no.

 

[Lowpro]

Yeah. There are some things that might be called idealism that make sense - not to say that they are necessarily true, but they're not obviously false, nor nonsensical. If the Universe is fundamentally mathematical, or information, or computation, then the material world we observe, and the minds that arise from our material world, could arise from that and everything would be consistent.

But saying that "mind" is what exist, and then handwaving both the material Universe we observe and the fact that we don't observe "mind" but distinct and isolated minds - and then claiming that this is more parsimonious... Yeah, no. Just no.

Yea you would need to be cavalier with how to define mind. Or you could go the full Deepak Chopra and say that a central consciousness of which all our own individual minds are experiencing reality as it exists from that central consciousness.

 

[annnnoid]

Just on that point: If that's what idealists suppose, then they are wrong. We know where our conscious minds come from, and they come from our material brains. They're not "foci" of anything. No matter what the fundamental nature of reality may be, that form of idealism is false-to-fact.

…where…specifically, explicitly, and definitely…has any of this been established???

…oh yeah…I forgot.

N O W H E R E!

We don’t even ‘KNOW’ what consciousness even is (prove me wrong).

…once again…the epileptic on the nest of fire hands…hands a waving…hands a waving…hands a waving!

…but good for you. Once again you’re confirming your rightful status as high priest of the true believers.

Congratulations.

 

[Belz...]

…where…specifically, explicitly, and definitely…has any of this been established???

…oh yeah…I forgot.

N O W H E R E!

We don’t even ‘KNOW’ what consciousness even is (prove me wrong).

…once again…the epileptic on the nest of fire hands…hands a waving…hands a waving…hands a waving!

…but good for you. Once again you’re confirming your rightful status as high priest of the true believers.

Congratulations.

Yet another content-free, snark-full post by Annnnoid. What did you add to the discussion ?

N O T H I N G!