I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Darat]

Clue me in: what is the group think here?

That we all believe we are people typing these posts.

It’s pretty insidious.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, we're all shills (who don't really exist) in the pocket of "Big Reality" (which also doesn't exist) arguing on an internet (that doesn't exist) with GLORIOUS DEEP PHILOSOPHERS that may or may not exist.

 

[bruto]

That we all believe we are people typing these posts.

It’s pretty insidious.

Aha. On the internet nobody knows you're a P-zombie.

 

[Robin]

It’s a waste of time and bandwidth to go against the group think here . . . fatalism

I have always been open to Idealism, I notice that other posters in this thread interpret my position as Idealism (it isn't).

But any specific arguments for Idealism have always gone nowhere, and have never withstood even the usual objections.

Bernardo, in particular, seems to try to make a set of vague assertions about some ill-defined concepts.

So I was just surprised to find someone felt that he had made a good argument somewhere.

 

[Cheetah]

If "Big Reality" doesn't exist, where does "Liberal Bias" originate?

 

[Darat]

Aha. On the internet nobody knows you're a P-zombie.

P-Zombies living amongst you were discovered a few years ago, I am one of them.

 

[Wudang]

I've read some of this skeptiko interview

I think if realities fundamentally mental there’s no reason to parcellate more than one subject. If everything is mind then there is mind, mind is the subject. Objects are imaginations within minds which are observed from several different points of view of mind. From that perspective there is only one subject, and you are that subject, and I am that subject too.

He seems to start by (and I may be wrong) by privileging personal perception then constructing a framework common to a number of idealists that "we are all aspects of one mind". He considers the "personality as a story we tell ourselves" idea and says that despite all that there is a sense of continuing identity beyond that. He claims that assuming only one mind is parsimonious. As I understand it he then suggests that as our minds have conscious and unconscious elements so might this "one mind".

. I mean it was not my intent to be that dismissive – all my answers are tentative. I approach them from the perspectives about someone who has looked at it and has chosen what I think is the simplest explanation with the most explanatory power

He has definitely considered more of the issues than other idealists I have encountered but as I see it his argument is still largely subjective and his parsimony ends up requiring far more complexity than it saves. I may have misunderstood some points as this is a transcript and he's obviously talking off the cuff.

 

[LarryS]

As I recall, from my reading of his book some years ago, most of his effort was to dismantle materialism more than building an argument for Idealism. Specifically, dismantling the need to postulate / abstract a non-mind physical world. For him, postulating a physical world created more problems than it solved.

 

[Darat]

As I recall, from my reading of his book some years ago, most of his effort was to dismantle materialism more than building an argument for Idealism. Specifically, dismantling the need to postulate / abstract a non-mind physical world. For him, postulating a physical world created more problems than it solved.

What problems are those?

 

[theprestige]

Nihilism: There is no stuff
Solipsism: There's just my stuff

Nihilism is about moral truth, not physical existence.

And I think solipsism reduces to one of the other ontologies. "I think, therefore I am" is solipsistic enough, but doesn't tell you whether your thoughts are physically material or physically ideal.

 

[Hellbound]

Nihilism is about moral truth, not physical existence.

And I think solipsism reduces to one of the other ontologies. "I think, therefore I am" is solipsistic enough, but doesn't tell you whether your thoughts are physically material or physically ideal.

Can we let just one joke slide, sometime?

 

[bruto]

Nihilism is about moral truth, not physical existence.

And I think solipsism reduces to one of the other ontologies. "I think, therefore I am" is solipsistic enough, but doesn't tell you whether your thoughts are physically material or physically ideal.

That's why I chose Gorgias instead. He could be considered an ideal blend of nihilism and solipsism, a metaphysical solipsist who actually (we're told) said that nothing exists, and if you did you couldn't know it, and if you could you couldn't describe it. Of course he couldn't have believed that, since a teacher and philosopher can hardly really believe that you can't teach and philosophize, but he seems to have succeeded in making a rock he couldn't lift, as Hume did much later.

"I think, therefore I am" is temporary solipsism but only, I think, if you stop there and don't believe what you think.

 

[theprestige]

Can we let just one joke slide, sometime?

; )

Sorry. You're absolutely right. It was a good joke and I apologize for stepping on it.

 

[theprestige]

Anyway, going back to the original challenge of the thread:

My best argument for Materialism is that it works. It may not be a complete working, like Newtonian physics. But in the limit of what I need to interact with existence, assuming Materialism works just fine.

Maybe Dualism is the metaphyscial reality, but unless you can show me why it matters to some practical purpose, I don't care.

At least the Relativity nerds are able to demonstrate both the physical reality of their alternative to Netwon, and practical applications of their alternative. Even the String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity nerds are able to explain how their alternatives would close real gaps in the current understanding.

Neither Materialism nor Dualism gets anywhere near that standard. So between the two of them, I choose the simpler one. If Bernardo ever returns, my challenge to him is to show why Dualism is a better choice, logically or practically.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My best argument for Materialism is that it works.

This thread has been going on so long that I don't know whether this has been posted yet, but from the "There's an XKCD for everything" files:

Dave

 

[theprestige]

This thread has been going on so long that I don't know whether this has been posted yet, but from the "There's an XKCD for everything" files:

[qimg]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg[/qimg]

Dave

Yep! I'm also a big fan of xkcd's Economic Argument:

https://xkcd.com/808/

If Dualism were actually useful, it would have been monetized, industrialized, and militarized ages ago.

 

[Hellbound]

Sorry. You're absolutely right. It was a good joke and I apologize for stepping on it.

No worries. I thought of the same objection you posted, but figured I'd go for the funny anyway.

I'm funny rarely enough that I can't afford to miss an attempt

 

[Cheetah]

Can't materialism, via technology, generate knowledge impossible for a mind to generate?