Are all sceptics materialists?

[TheAdversary]

At the risk of wasting a post, may I ask for TheAdversary's working definition of Materialism?

'Wij zijn ons brein'-'We are our brain' by Dick Swaab reaches some pinnacle of Materialism.
Essentially, Materialism is the denial of Free Will.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

'Wij zijn ons brein'-'We are our brain' by Dick Swaab reaches some pinnacle of Materialism.
Essentially, Materialism is the denial of Free Will.

Throwing good pixels after bad, may I ask again for a working definition of Materialism please?

If you can't define it in one or two complete sentences I suggest you might not understand it well enough to wield it as an intellectual cudgel.

 

[Tony99]

'Wij zijn ons brein'-'We are our brain' by Dick Swaab reaches some pinnacle of Materialism.
Essentially, Materialism is the denial of Free Will.

Crowley/Thelema implicitly denies "Free Will" in favor of a directed destiny or the correct order of society in his concept of "True Will"
Most definitely an anti-free will system.

 

[AdamSK]

There is no "evidence for me." We don't all get our own individual kinds of evidence.

The clause "for you" did not modify evidence; it modified the whole predicate. Reordered:

"Then stop acting like, for you, this is about evidence."

That's pretty clear from context.

What exactly would be the evidence for something that is "immaterial" that isn't pure special pleading or other silly word games?

As I said, I don't think such evidence has actually been presented. But it is not difficult to think of examples.

Let's say, for instance, that the evidence Carl Jung cited for a "racial memory" actually held up to scrutiny. We could isolate individuals and demonstrate that they do substantially better if given last Sunday's NYT crossword than when given next Sundays. We can generate a random string of words or colors and teach them to Population A and members of Population B will be able to spontaneously recite them. There could very well be evidence for a transfer of information between individuals that cannot be accounted for physically.

As another example, let's say that we were able to map the brain molecule-for-molecule and determined that the exact same physical state of the brain existed when people were thinking/doing widely different things. Or that we can map a person's brain exactly, wait a week, restore the brain to its mapped state, and the person still remembers what happened in the intervening week. Or any other evidence that the brain is actually a "radio" receiving information and/or control signals from something that is not directly detectable other than through its influence on the brain.

A third example would be if claims about ghosts were substantiated - if there were phenomena that could be thoroughly investigated and were best explained by the intervention of an intelligence that does not appear to have a physical body.

We can come up with cases like this, where it would be appropriate to refer to the phenomenon as "immaterial." As information or mind that does not have a physical medium underlying it. And while no such phenomena have held up to physical scrutiny, it would be bad science to claim that they could not in principle do so.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... As I said, I don't think such evidence has actually been presented. But it is not difficult to think of examples.

Let's say, for instance, that the evidence Carl Jung cited for a "racial memory" actually held up to scrutiny. We could isolate individuals and demonstrate that they do substantially better if given last Sunday's NYT crossword than when given next Sundays. We can generate a random string of words or colors and teach them to Population A and members of Population B will be able to spontaneously recite them. There could very well be evidence for a transfer of information between individuals that cannot be accounted for physically.

As another example, let's say that we were able to map the brain molecule-for-molecule and determined that the exact same physical state of the brain existed when people were thinking/doing widely different things. Or that we can map a person's brain exactly, wait a week, restore the brain to its mapped state, and the person still remembers what happened in the intervening week. Or any other evidence that the brain is actually a "radio" receiving information and/or control signals from something that is not directly detectable other than through its influence on the brain.

A third example would be if claims about ghosts were substantiated - if there were phenomena that could be thoroughly investigated and were best explained by the intervention of an intelligence that does not appear to have a physical body.

We can come up with cases like this, where it would be appropriate to refer to the phenomenon as "immaterial." As information or mind that does not have a physical medium underlying it. And while no such phenomena have held up to physical scrutiny, it would be bad science to claim that they could not in principle do so.

I find myself at odds with myself. That is, I have argued your point before; i.e., that it is hard to rule some things out in principle. Unfortunately, those examples, all really relating to a soul-like self that is not dependent on matter and energy or hosts itself by other means while surfing the ether, can be ruled out. More on that later.

What can't be ruled out entirely is some possible working of some purported immaterial realm that, by definition is not observable. In a word, this is solely a matter of faith, or pure conjecture. As it is nothing that ever impinges on this world observably, who cares? No way to establish the veridical nature of any statement. But also hard to establish that no particle of any kind has any mediating effect on some non-observable medium, since there is no peeking into woo-land.

Back to the examples. They seem to share a view that consciousness is a matter of fine granularity, as if an extra 'mind' particle permeates the brain. This is not so; google for medical definitions of consciousness and brain states, and you will see they are quite macro. That is, no consciousness obtains in the absence of certain macro features, end of story. QM et al is not explanatory.

Returning to the very old debate on ruling out fully immaterial things - or purest woo, it was said in an old thread, quoting Sean Carroll, that QFT ruled everything out; all forces were accounted for, so no 'woo carrying forces' could exist. It occurs to me that that argument is incomplete, as it deals only with baryonic matter. Iirc, there are some theories out there today positing mediating particles in dark matter, called dark photons. Not that I'm peddling that as any sort of woo carrier by any means, or making any claim whatsoever (heaven forbid), but it does go to show that it is hard to close the door on new discovery just yet.

And back to the brain and mind: no matter how many new particles or fields, since consciousness is not at that scale, no immortal soul will ever come of new discoveries in physics.

 

[ComfySlippers]

And as a a personal favour could you please type your text without all the unneeded carriage returns? It makes reading your posts difficult?

It hurts everyone's eyes, he's been told this many times but refuses to stop. He's still trying to be a bad boy.

"Purposely using disruptive formatting" should cover it.

 

[Darat]

All I saw in this thread, were hardcore Materialists. Even AdamSK had to backtrack. Point me towards a real non-Materialistic sceptic, then.
Maybe I missed one?

Yes - as I said - me.

 

[MikeG]

.........Point me towards a real non-Materialistic sceptic, then.
Maybe I missed one?

Once you've told us precisely what a Materialist is we'll have a better chance of pointing out your errors.

 

[Joey McGee]

This guy also thinks all of psychiatry and psychology is junk science, just sayin'. We're ignorant of philosophy. Yes, one of those.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Returning to the very old debate on ruling out fully immaterial things - or purest woo, it was said in an old thread, quoting Sean Carroll, that QFT ruled everything out; all forces were accounted for, so no 'woo carrying forces' could exist. It occurs to me that that argument is incomplete, as it deals only with baryonic matter. Iirc, there are some theories out there today positing mediating particles in dark matter, called dark photons. Not that I'm peddling that as any sort of woo carrier by any means, or making any claim whatsoever (heaven forbid), but it does go to show that it is hard to close the door on new discovery just yet.

And back to the brain and mind: no matter how many new particles or fields, since consciousness is not at that scale, no immortal soul will ever come of new discoveries in physics.

It's not so much that all forces are accounted for it is (as you really go on to describe) that there is no room for any further forces at the scale at which consciousness works. So even if there are further interactions between the dark and light they happen at a scale or energy level that does not affect our consciousness.

It always boils down to the contradiction problem of dualism - if it has an effect it can be measured and understood so the "immaterial" just becomes one more part of a "material" description or understanding of the world around us.

 

[AdamSK]

I find myself at odds with myself. That is, I have argued your point before; i.e., that it is hard to rule some things out in principle. Unfortunately, those examples, all really relating to a soul-like self that is not dependent on matter and energy or hosts itself by other means while surfing the ether, can be ruled out.

I suspect it will be ruled out shortly, yes, and in the interim I see no good evidence for it. But it is being ruled out by the fact that we are not observing these phenomena. That is, it's ruled out the same way we have ruled out ducks with bright red plumage - evidence, not principle.

 

[AdamSK]

It always boils down to the contradiction problem of dualism - if it has an effect it can be measured and understood so the "immaterial" just becomes one more part of a "material" description or understanding of the world around us.

I strongly dispute this contradiction, because it excludes the possibility that the immaterial could itself remain largely hidden but have real and measureable effects. The God of the Bible or the Koran is a good example of this - He is presented as having a complex nature that is not evident anywhere in the material world and cannot be deduced from His actions in the world, but the described actions ("miracles") have profoundly large effects on the world. If, for example the Book of Judges was understood to be a literal historical account of actual events, then we would have tons of data points to corroborate God's existence but still no way to add Him to any model of the physical universe.

Dualism doesn't automatically collapse into monism when it first impacts the material in some way.

 

[Darat]

I suspect it will be ruled out shortly, yes, and in the interim I see no good evidence for it. But it is being ruled out by the fact that we are not observing these phenomena. That is, it's ruled out the same way we have ruled out ducks with bright red plumage - evidence, not principle.

Already has been. (In both in theory and empirically.)

 

[Tale]

I strongly dispute this contradiction, because it excludes the possibility that the immaterial could itself remain largely hidden but have real and measureable effects. The God of the Bible or the Koran is a good example of this - He is presented as having a complex nature that is not evident anywhere in the material world and cannot be deduced from His actions in the world, but the described actions ("miracles") have profoundly large effects on the world. If, for example the Book of Judges was understood to be a literal historical account of actual events, then we would have tons of data points to corroborate God's existence but still no way to add Him to any model of the physical universe.

Dualism doesn't automatically collapse into monism when it first impacts the material in some way.

That would only be because god is intentionally masking his actions or arbitrary.

There's been little such excuse made for souls. And the idea that one's soul would be an entirely separate intelligence like that sort of throws Descarte's whole argument for it into question, I think.

 

[Darat]

I strongly dispute this contradiction, because it excludes the possibility that the immaterial could itself remain largely hidden but have real and measureable effects. The God of the Bible or the Koran is a good example of this - He is presented as having a complex nature that is not evident anywhere in the material world

Strongly disagree with this. The entire foundation of (for example) the 3 Abrahamic religions is about the evidence of their god in this world. Their entire scriptures rest on the premise of the evidence of god in their world.

and cannot be deduced from His actions in the world, but the described actions ("miracles") have profoundly large effects on the world. If, for example the Book of Judges was understood to be a literal historical account of actual events, then we would have tons of data points to corroborate God's existence but still no way to add Him to any model of the physical universe.

Again strongly disagree - the three religions are all about how their god is defined and they use the many, many ways in which their god interacts with the world to create those definitions.

If their gods are capable of rearranging matter (a common claim in their scriptures) than we can define him by that capability. Your argument saying that does not necessarily allow us to describe god is simply a "god of the gaps" argument.

Dualism doesn't automatically collapse into monism when it first impacts the material in some way.

If it interacts with the world it is a part of the world and we can investigate it.

 

[AdamSK]

That would only be because god is intentionally masking his actions or arbitrary.

Or operates according to principles we can't model. Which could be true if He is too complex, or too alien, or simply much smarter and faster than we are.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Is this thread actually just a promotion of Islamic religion?

Yep, some kind of love-letter to Islam typed in the style of a dyslexic drunk.

 

[AdamSK]

Strongly disagree with this. The entire foundation of (for example) the 3 Abrahamic religions is about the evidence of their god in this world. Their entire scriptures rest on the premise of the evidence of god in their world.

No, the entire Scriptures rest on the premise of a transcendent Being that interacts with this world. There are aspects of His nature that are revealed but the whole of His nature is hidden.

Again strongly disagree - the three religions are all about how their god is defined and they use the many, many ways in which their god interacts with the world to create those definitions.

And many, many times where God says "you don't get it" or prophets complain about not getting it. That's pretty much what the entire book of Job is about, for instance.

If their gods are capable of rearranging matter (a common claim in their scriptures) than we can define him by that capability.

So you can say "there is an intelligence that can rearrange matter." That doesn't suddenly make that intelligence itself a product of identifiable natural forces. It doesn't collapse it to any of the sort of thing we could call "material." And while the matter rearrangement would itself be material, we still wouldn't have a material cause for it.

If it interacts with the world it is a part of the world and we can investigate it.

No, you can investigate its interactions with the world. That doesn't preclude the possibility of truly hidden mechanics for which we can reasonably conclude exist but neither describe nor predict.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'd say, if I have to pick one book, Liber 418 by Aleister Crowley does a good job. But I don't believe you can pick up anything worthwhile from just one book.

I'd go as far as to argue that you can't pick up anything worthwhile from reading Crowley.

 

[Tale]

Or operates according to principles we can't model. Which could be true if He is too complex, or too alien, or simply much smarter and faster than we are.

If something we couldn't model, something complex, or bizzare, was interacting with the material world in ways that have distinct appreciable effects, but wasn't making an effort to hide itself, we'd still see it.

You don't have to know the whole model to see where the existing model fails.