The relationship between science and materialism

[Z]

Seems to me this thread has gone a LONG way to say absolutely nothing of interest.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sometimes you have to go the long way round to get back to where you started. Or something.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Sorry, it'll have to be you. I agree it follows that you never had an ontologically distinct mind, but I don't know why the linguistic trick of deprecating the word mind follows.

~~ Paul

As the discussion is ontological, how can one deprecate that which does not exist?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, further reading about eliminative materialism does find people claiming that it means there is literally no such thing as pain, for any definition of pain. That's just silly.

Now I find that the Churchlands have changed their tune a bit over the years.

Reductive materialism sounds more reasonable, but I find arguments that reductive materialism is just eliminative materialism in a different dress.

Ah, metaphysics. I declare myself an eliminative metaphysician.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

Religious people are always trying to equate science with religion--so they can promote the two as being equal for finding "truth". Sure the smooth talking author wants you to believe he has access to higher truths...or that scientists are biased against dualism because (despite what our personal desires might be) that's what the evidence shows--dualism is an illusion. I agree that faith should not be a part of science--but materialism is not a "faith". It's the theory that best fits the facts--and science doesn't plug in supernatural explanations for that which it does not understand--like shaman, holymen, spiritual advisors, preachers, etc. like to do. Such people attain power, money, devotees, etc.--and promise rich eternal rewards (if not here, then in the afterlife)--but science gives you the tangible miracles of everyday life--in the only lifetime we can be absolutely sure about.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Interesting paper, Consciousness and the Limits of our Imaginations:

http://iteso.mx/~carlos/i m a g i n a/consciusnesslimitsofimaginations.pdf

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Religious people are always trying to equate science with religion--so they can promote the two as being equal for finding "truth". ...

Perhaps you should locate some religious people and chat with them about your concerns. There are damn few, if any, who post much here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Look at t=0 big bang. If you accept a singularity, that I'd say is Geoff's zero. And sfaik, science today concludes that total energy content of 'what-is' is zero, gravity offsetting all other forces.

All that is fine. I don't think anyone has any problem with Being = Nothing in that sense. We could probably construct any number of equations that sum to zero by choosing the opposing properties properly, but that won't tell us if we have the answer to life, the universe and everything, since we will be starting with the proposition that everything equals to zero.

The problem here comes from trying to put Awareness in the middle of the equation without probable cause.

Would you say that Awareness is all there is to idealism? Or is there more thinking involved in the process?


Hey Articulett, how are you? This is Ahkmet, by the way.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I just had a flash. Geoff has defined a sort of nonreductive neutral monism, since Being doesn't reduce to Neutral or vice versa. So how is it different from nonreductive materialism? Just wondering.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The comparison of folk terms to phlogiston is misleading. Granted, there turned out to be no such thing as phlogiston. However, the problem that phlogiston was meant to solve was a real problem, and another solution was found. That solution happened not to be called phlogiston, whereas the solution to the sun appearing in the morning continued to be called the sunrise. There is no deep meaning to this difference. It is possibly due to phlogiston being a noun and sunrise being a verb.

Sunrise is a verb? What a clown.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

The problem here comes from trying to put Awareness in the middle of the equation without probable cause.

An idealist would posit that awareness is all that is.

Would you say that Awareness is all there is to idealism? Or is there more thinking involved in the process?

I'd say "Thinking" appears to require idealism's awareness to provide some form of what is perceived as matter/energy, and some configurations that matter/energy can be arranged in provide awareness with more input/output (and, perhaps, processing) capabilities.


Paul: I also have trouble not finding dualism in neutral monism.

BTW, that last article you linked seems to find dualism as good an answer as physicalism, as I read between the lines.

And cheer up. Sunrise is also an adjective.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I find arguments that reductive materialism is just eliminative materialism in a different dress.

It's worse than that. The dress doesn't fit.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey, I just had a flash. Geoff has defined a sort of nonreductive neutral monism

No he hasn't. He's defined a reductive neutral monism.

, since Being doesn't reduce to Neutral or vice versa. So how is it different from nonreductive materialism? Just wondering.

~~ Paul

It's reductive, and it's not materialism.

I reduce mind and matter to neutral. I don't eliminate anything. The difference is my reduction works (logically) and the materialist's doesn't.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Interesting paper, Consciousness and the Limits of our Imaginations:

http://iteso.mx/~carlos/i m a g i n a/consciusnesslimitsofimaginations.pdf

~~ Paul

If you've interested, this is my response to chalmers dualism:

http://esophy.com/consciousnessplacenature.html

And the paper you linked to claims that

a) Consciousness supervenes on the physical

and

b) But we are theoretically incapable of explaining how or why

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I reduce mind and matter to neutral. I don't eliminate anything. The difference is my reduction works (logically) and the materialist's doesn't.

You reduce mind and matter to Being and Neutral, but Being and Neutral don't reduce to one another. So even if you claim you don't have dualism, you've got a nonreductive monism. Or doesn't Being count because it's nothing?

~~Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You reduce mind and matter to Being and Neutral, but Being and Neutral don't reduce to one another.

I've already given you an explanation as to why this was a misunderstanding of my position, which you accepted. You agreed there was no duality between zero and the rest of mathematics, and that this meant my system wasn't dualistic.

So even if you claim you don't have dualism, you've got a nonreductive monism. Or doesn't Being count because it's nothing?

~~Paul

That's correct. Being/Nothing doesn't count. It's not like "mind-stuff".

My monism is reductive. It's non-eliminative.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Since when does zero in mathematics have the added property of awareness?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The Behemoth still stirs....

Kevin,

I can't be bothered to have a p*ss*ng contest with you.

Then don't.

Just explain for everybody else's benefit how you think you have established that the thing you call "eliminative materialism" is the only consistent form of materialism.

The only argument you have offered on that topic was the P1/P2 business, and that has been exposed as flawed. So you still have no answer to the possibility that maybe there can be minds and beliefs that are purely physical.

If that were possible, your neutral monism would have to compete with a much simpler theory, straightforward materialism. So you really do need a decent answer to that question. Not to win a pissing contest with me, but to have a theory that has any claim to legitimacy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin,

I showed you the proof. It's a whole seven lines long. Here we go again:

a) Every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

or

b) Not every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

(a) and (b) are mutually exclusive.
If (a) is true then eliminative materialism is true.
If (b) is true then there must be a non-physical element to mental realm, which means all forms of materialism are false.

Which bit didn't you understand? This bit:

If (a) is true then eliminative materialism is true.

I don't understand what the problem is.

IF every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural THEN eliminative materialism is true.

There is nothing to reject about this. Eliminative materialism IS the claim that every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term can be theoretically been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural. I am talking about a hypothetical situation where the project of the eliminativists has been completed. At this point, which I do not believe can happen (theoretically) nobody would need mental words anymore. The eliminitavists would then have an unrefutable claim that their theory was correct and non-eliminative versions of materialism must be wrong. They would have proved it empirically.

 

[hammegk]

Since when does zero in mathematics have the added property of awareness?

Does math exist if there is no awareness?