My argument against materialism

[Dancing David]

Observation, by definition, is "someone looking at it". All "properly conducted observations" are equally consistent with idealism, dualism, materialism, etc. As such, they equally confirm any logically consistent model of reality.

Yes, and the crucial point is then which models explain the behavior of reality. Some consistent models of reality do not match observations ie the 'aether'.

 

[Dancing David]

And mind.

As in what? That term is rather vague, do you mean the experienced events of 'consciousness'?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it doesn't.

Um, yeah, actually it does.


ETA:
I am not arguing that materialism is true, only that the way of examining idealism as true can lead one to conclude that materialism is true. Both are incorrect, however, and rely on leaps. My basic point stands -- there is no safe move from epistemology to ontology.

If monism is true, then all of these arguments are simply stupid. What is, is what is. That's about all we can say. If dualism or pluralism is true, then magic exists and we are really up the creek in terms of knowledge.

 

[AlBell]

Um, yeah, actually it does.

Er, no.

ETA:
I am not arguing that materialism is true, only that the way of examining idealism as true can lead one to conclude that materialism is true.

Hogwash.

Both are incorrect, however, and rely on leaps. My basic point stands -- there is no safe move from epistemology to ontology.

Indeed. Nothing "favors" materialism=true.

If monism is true, then all of these arguments are simply stupid. What is, is what is. That's about all we can say.

Yup. All we can notice is the behavior of those touting materialism as True, versus those who aren't so certain.

If dualism or pluralism is true, then magic exists and we are really up the creek in terms of knowledge.

Apparently not. We are 'where we are' re knowledge.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Er, no.

Um, energy and time are not key essentials of materialism? Really?

 

[AlBell]

Our perception of them existing is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Our perception of them existing is.

Perception is a process -- implying time and energy -- that is the point.

The ultimate point is that this entire line of thought is a waste of time. We can end up in either camp just by thinking in a particular way.

When it comes to ontology we can't get there from here.

 

[benjayk]

@IMST: Uhm, i probably expressed myself to cryptical. My argument is precisely that you can *only* rely on your senses (or rather your observation, because there arguably may be observation that do not come through what we classically know as senses).
And how is does that necessarily lead to solipsism? As I said, it might that more than one person share the same fundamental consciousness and this is knowable, even if we right now can not be totally sure that others have subjective experience.

If it was in principle unknowable if other people have subjective experience I think this would lead indeed to solipsism. If we could never directly know whether other people have subjective experience, in effect "other people have subjective experience" and "other people do not have subjective experience" would be indistinguishable and thus assuming one or the other would be an empty belief. We could then only make (useful) theories about the *behaviour* of persons.

@Lowpro: No, I'm sincere. I can understand why one would hold such a belief (sometimes empty beliefs sound "good" to your mind) - actually I myself believed in materialism for quite a long time - but I can not understand what the meaning of this belief actually is.
What does it mean *for me* to make a statement that is "true" independent of me? I can only ever know truth in the context of myself. Do you feel that is different for you? If yes, please give me an example.
The rest of your post are mainly assertions that I can not follow so I really can't answer to them, sorry. I don't get how arrive at your odds or why biochemistry does not allow for consciousness to be fundamental.
Personally I think it's likely that subjective experience corresponds to computations, that is, it is not substrate dependent. For all I know my personality might not be dependent on biochemistry (e.g. minduploading might be possible) and this applies even more for consciousness (because it is more general than personality - personality is a form of consciousness).

@Ichneumonwasp: I agree we can only guess about what really exists apart from what we can know. But I would formulate it more strongly: All statements about what really exists apart from what we can know are empty. I have yet to discover something suggesting the contrary.
For *me* what I know is what "really" exists *for me*. I have no way of making coherent statements that are outside of this. So, I don't think there is a gap between ontology and epistemology. What we can directly know is all what surely is for us.
And no, time and energy are not the basis of materialism. We can threat time and energy as things we can measure, without jumping to (in my mind incoherent) conlusions about what this means *really* exists.
This seems like a really common confusion. It's like saying morality sounds like the basis of christian religion, therefore it is likely to be true. It just doesn't follow.

Seems to be the nature of philosophy-- More an exercise in the precise use of language than a means by which we can achieve knowledge-- Language can certainly be very moving.

Yes, this is why I don't like philosophy as commonly practiced. But I hope maybe it is possible to have a conversation that does not end in endless discussion about what is the right way to phrase abstract ideas most precisely. I don't think we can phrase most fundamental issues precisely, because they are simply beyond language.
Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking it is possible to have fruitful conversations about philosophical issues without falling into this trap and it is, when it comes down to it, an hopeless endavour.

Something that feels right in your gut-- Very few will argue with your gut, as long as you're up front about it. Just don't expect folks to believe that what you're saying is true based on nothing other than the strength of you personal conviction.

Right, but this is not my point. I want people to know for themselves what is true and asking questions or explaining what it is that leads me to this conclusion might help. I did not stating they should follow my belief just because I believe.
Actually I despise this kind of thinking, it leads to very disastrous consequences and we all are susceptible to it. Myself included.
Even when I thought I was thinking oh so freely I was dead wrong and in fact just adopted other people's beliefs (e.g. regarding materialism or even worse politics - it seems hard to belief for me that I once believed in the goodness / necessity of the state or even, to some extent, state socialism).

"Something independent of me" means something that exists regardless of whether I exist.

Exactly!

Again, it's axiomatic. A mind-independent, consistent, probabilistically predictable universe seems to exist. There is no reason to assume that it doesn't.

Well, in my humble opinion the belief into mind-independence is simply a belief you copied, but is actually empty (and thus probably just serves to confuse you).
It is very understandably to belief this. We want to make statements that are independent on our *particular state* of mind, so to assume they are independent of our generalized mind (=consciousness="I am"-ness) seems like a small step. But it is not.

So my question to you is, what is the reason that makes you believe that the universe is mind-independent when you actually always use your mind (in a general sense) by observing it?

I can not prove it to you and I can not give you a reason to assume it isn't mind independent, because an empty belief can logically believed, without this being demonstrably wrong (just like you could write 1+1=0+0+0+0+0+0+0+2), but I think it is important psychologically to not hold empty beliefs that we take to be meaningful.
Of course I can believe that there are living invisible pink unicorns on the moon, and arguably no one can show me that I'm strictly wrong about it. But making it the centre of your worldview will most probably confuse you.

For instance? (bold mine--)

"The universe exists independently of me". Very clearly we cannot observe this directly. And to infer it indirectly seems to be totally arbitrary to me. What is it that justifies this step?

This sounds like a bid for immortality, though I may be misreading you. I don't like the idea that I will someday cease to exist either. You speak of merging identities to the point of a total personality change. Were that to happen, how would the result be "you" in any meaningful way? Which is neither here nor there, other than as an exercise in rhetoric. Once your brain dies, you (the personality) are gone. The universe, however, will keep clicking right along.

I indeed believe in immortality.
I clearly will never find my consciousness gone (retrospectively there might be a meaning to this, but of course if we die in a final way there will be no retrospection). Therefore I must always find it to be there. And this translates into: "I am immortal". I just don't see any alternative.

I reckon that if I "add" something to my personality (for example another personality) it is preserved from my point of view, even if somebody else would assert I changed beyond recognition.

We only know that if the brain dies, the presonality dies relative to the people around you (some would argue this is not universally true and some people can have contact with dead ones; there seems to be some evidence of this, but I'm not going to argue it is extremely convincing).
What really happens to your personality is an open problem.
But I believe my personality can be more adequately described as an informational pattern than as a physical state of my brain (after all my brain changes dramatically during my life, and according to quantum mechanics it's questionable if there really is something solid that is my brain). I reckon informational pattern can't vanish, so they can only be relatively forgotten. Some day someone might recover the informational pattern that corresponds to your personality and you feel being resurrected.

In your OP you said:

"We also could conclude that we don’t (or cannot) know what the basis of reality is."

Again, I could be misreading you, but I get the feeling that you actually adhere to an ontological position that could be summed up as "The basis of reality is mind."

Yep, my conlusion is that the basis of my reality can be known to be consciousness (I like this term better than mind, because I think it's more precise).
But if someone can't follow (or doesn't share) my reasoning of course saying "I don't know" is fine, too, , that's why I included it. It's alot better than believing something empty, but taking it to be something profound.

All well and good-- Just don't expect folks to believe it just because you really, really, think it's true.

I don't. I only want encourage deep introspection instead of just pushing words around or searching for some unfindable (in regard to this topic) objective truth, that's why I am appealing to subjective truth (but yours not mine!).
I don't know if I succeed with that, though.

 

[AlBell]

Perception is a process -- implying time and energy -- that is the point.

Facts not in evidence; darn that perception.

The ultimate point is that this entire line of thought is a waste of time. We can end up in either camp just by thinking in a particular way.

When it comes to ontology we can't get there from here.

Of course. All one can do is choose; consciously or by the default dualism.

And the behavior of any human reflects the choice made.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Facts not in evidence; darn that perception.

Facts in evidence. Perceptions unfold. That unfolding occurs in time and only through some process that makes them possible -- that is what we mean when we use the word 'energy' (the ability to perform work).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

@Ichneumonwasp: I agree we can only guess about what really exists apart from what we can know. But I would formulate it more strongly: All statements about what really exists apart from what we can know are empty. I have yet to discover something suggesting the contrary.
For *me* what I know is what "really" exists *for me*. I have no way of making coherent statements that are outside of this. So, I don't think there is a gap between ontology and epistemology. What we can directly know is all what surely is for us.

You can decide whatever you want. Plenty of people have made the same decision, but you have to admit that it is a decision and not a fact. In fact, on the surface of it, it is fairly ego- or humano-centric position to take -- that the means of our knowing is the basis of what exists.

The gap between epistemology and ontology remains. You can speak of what there is for you, but that does not decided what actually is. What there is for you is an epistemological issue; that is not ontology.

And no, time and energy are not the basis of materialism. We can threat time and energy as things we can measure, without jumping to (in my mind incoherent) conlusions about what this means *really* exists.
This seems like a really common confusion. It's like saying morality sounds like the basis of christian religion, therefore it is likely to be true. It just doesn't follow.

Time (really space-time) and energy are 'the foundation' of what most people call materialism; they are the expressions of whatever the deeper substance there is that *is* the ur-substance if there is a single substance.


And, no, this is nothing like saying morality is the basis of Christianity, therefore it is likely to be true.

The whole point is that we can twist our way of looking at what we can know several different ways -- and none of them ever gets us any nearer *what really is*.

 

[AlBell]

Facts in evidence. Perceptions unfold.

That unfolding occurs in time and only through some process that makes them possible -- that is what we mean when we use the word 'energy' (the ability to perform work).

I'm happy you seem happy that that belief implies materialism=True.

Neither materialism nor idealism have any bearing on either of the concepts we may have of time or energy.

 

[benjayk]

@Ichneumonwasp: Sadly you do not get my point. Seems like I failed to express it the right way. So I try again:

Of course we can believe many things (whether we always decide what we want to believe is another point), but the question is, what does the belief correspond to / mean? If we cannot find this, we are holding a belief that is empty / superfluous and potentially confusing.

I don't say there is no other right belief than mine to hold, I just wonder what a belief that many people hold (there exist something regardless whether consciousness exist), actually means.
I don't think there is a point to discussing for the purpose of being right, so I don't mind disagreement. But I like to understand what is it that you disagree about (not which words). In general I suspect we do not disagree about what we mean, but simply don't understand each other (and sometimes not ourselves ).

My position is hardly ego- or humancentric because I explicitly refer to consciousness as basic entity, which seems to exist beyond my ego (as other persons) and very well may exist as totally different beings. But yes, I am consciousness-centric, because I have yet to understand what outside of consciousness means (not outside of my consciousness!).

I probably misphrased what I meant: Not what I know right now is all that can be for me, but what *can* be known for me is all that can be for me.
So my question is: How do you get from "what there possibly can be for me" to "what is (apart from what is for you)" - how do you bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology?
If there is no way, how do you talk about "what is" without talking nonsense (because you are talking about something you can never acquire as knowledge)?

I agree that time and energy are foundations of *material science*. But materialism is more than this, namely the claim that they are more fundamental that consciousness.

If looking at what we can know (in the most general sense) doesn't get us nearer to *what really is* what does? And if nothing does what does "what really is" mean (this is an sincere question)?

If you can't say what it means and I don't already know what it means for you (I don't!), you could speak of "DEHdfgh" instead of "what really is" and it meant the same for me.

Hopefully I got a little closer to convey what I mean. It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking what I write is clear for others, because I think it's so obvious. But it need not be for others.

 

[Lowpro]

@Lowpro: No, I'm sincere. I can understand why one would hold such a belief (sometimes empty beliefs sound "good" to your mind) - actually I myself believed in materialism for quite a long time - but I can not understand what the meaning of this belief actually is.
What does it mean *for me* to make a statement that is "true" independent of me? I can only ever know truth in the context of myself. Do you feel that is different for you? If yes, please give me an example.
The rest of your post are mainly assertions that I can not follow so I really can't answer to them, sorry. I don't get how arrive at your odds or why biochemistry does not allow for consciousness to be fundamental.
Personally I think it's likely that subjective experience corresponds to computations, that is, it is not substrate dependent. For all I know my personality might not be dependent on biochemistry (e.g. minduploading might be possible) and this applies even more for consciousness (because it is more general than personality - personality is a form of consciousness).

It's fine to leave room for doubt, but you're making the argument "for all you know" but that is not a valid argument.

I'm sorry but I do not understand the necessity for the philosophical "theory of everything" and in that, I do not understand a necessity for "the truth" in how you seem to desire it. Validity of empirical evidence is all that matters, and validity often changes.

The problem I see here is that because you understand that validity often changes you fell into solopsism, because you care too much for this "truth" ideal. Stop it.

The reality we live in is NOT subjective to our experiences and our ability to quantify it. We have run experiments and the data collected is consistent with hypothesized notions of reality. We don't need to postulate rules on how gravity exists for it to behave as it does; without our existence and our ability to quantify it, a ball, when dropped will drop.

I am sure of it, only because I know that it is not subjective, even if how we came to the conclusion is. That is reality. I think you're lending too much credit to your consciousness and it's requirements for understanding reality.

I know it's not quite what you had mentioned, I'm trying to beat you to your next point(s)

 

[gentlehorse]

So my question to you is, what is the reason that makes you believe that the universe is mind-independent when you actually always use your mind (in a general sense) by observing it?

The evidence indicates that the universe existed for billions of years before your consciousness, my consciousness, or any consciousness, emerged. Consequently, I conclude that the universe is mind-independent.

I can not prove it to you and I can not give you a reason to assume it isn't mind independent, because an empty belief can logically believed, without this being demonstrably wrong (just like you could write 1+1=0+0+0+0+0+0+0+2), but I think it is important psychologically to not hold empty beliefs that we take to be meaningful.

It seems that by "empty belief" you mean "unfulfilling position" or "uncomfortable position." The notion that the universe is mind-independent and that upon your death your consciousness will cease to exist is consistent with what we observe, regardless of the extent to which you, I, or anyone else finds it to be an "empty belief".

"The universe exists independently of me". Very clearly we cannot observe this directly. And to infer it indirectly seems to be totally arbitrary to me. What is it that justifies this step?

The fact that it is consistent with what we observe. My consciousness has only been around for 52 years. The universe clicked along just fine without me for about 13.7 billion years. Consequently, I have no problem saying that "the universe exists independently of me."

I indeed believe in immortality.
I clearly will never find my consciousness gone (retrospectively there might be a meaning to this, but of course if we die in a final way there will be no retrospection). Therefore I must always find it to be there. And this translates into: "I am immortal". I just don't see any alternative.

You may be right, although I see no reason to conclude that you are. If it turns out that you are, I'll buy you a non-corporeal beer when we merge into the mega-consciousness.

We only know that if the brain dies, the presonality dies relative to the people around you (some would argue this is not universally true and some people can have contact with dead ones; there seems to be some evidence of this, but I'm not going to argue it is extremely convincing).

What really happens to your personality is an open problem.

The evidence indicates that when the brain dies, consciouseness ends. There is no compelling evidence that human consciousness can exist outside a living brain and therefore no reason to conclude that it can.

Some day someone might recover the informational pattern that corresponds to your personality and you feel being resurrected.

Brings to mind Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld-- A cool notion-- Can't bring myself to believe it though-- Coolness is hardly a basis for belief.

Yep, my conlusion is that the basis of my reality can be known to be consciousness (I like this term better than mind, because I think it's more precise).
But if someone can't follow (or doesn't share) my reasoning of course saying "I don't know" is fine, too, , that's why I included it. It's alot better than believing something empty, but taking it to be something profound.

If you are comfortable with your gut feelings and understand that there is every possiblitiy that you may be wrong, dandy. We all do what we need to do to get by in this world.

 

[Malerin]

So my question to you is, what is the reason that makes you believe that the universe is mind-independent when you actually always use your mind (in a general sense) by observing it?

The evidence indicates that the universe appears to have existed for billions of years before your consciousness, my consciousness, or any consciousness, emerged. Consequently, I conclude that the universe is mind-independent.

FTFY. You're making an unjusitifed assumption that the way things appear to be is how they really are. You're also assuming atheism is true. I can just as easily assume theism is true and conclude the universe is mind-dependent.

 

[devnull]

I can just as easily assume theism is true

Except that none of the evidence supports this.

 

[yy2bggggs]

You're making an unjusitifed assumption that the way things appear to be is how they really are.

Pardon, but what definition of justified are you using, where it's not justified to assume something based on how it appears to be?

 

[Malerin]

Except that none of the evidence supports this.

The evidence doesn't support theism or atheism (strong). The assumption that the universe has been around for billions of years without consciousness existing is just that: an assumption.

 

[IMST]

@IMST: Uhm, i probably expressed myself to cryptical. My argument is precisely that you can *only* rely on your senses (or rather your observation, because there arguably may be observation that do not come through what we classically know as senses).
And how is does that necessarily lead to solipsism? As I said, it might that more than one person share the same fundamental consciousness and this is knowable, even if we right now can not be totally sure that others have subjective experience.

If it was in principle unknowable if other people have subjective experience I think this would lead indeed to solipsism. If we could never directly know whether other people have subjective experience, in effect "other people have subjective experience" and "other people do not have subjective experience" would be indistinguishable and thus assuming one or the other would be an empty belief. We could then only make (useful) theories about the *behaviour* of persons.

Yes. I have to rely on my senses. So what? I make a point of studying places where human senses are known to be faulty. As far as the many who say observation can come through anything other than the senses, that's crap until there's a mote of evidence that there's any truth to that. The part that leads to solipsism is the next step. It's where you go from relying on the basics of your senses to saying that's not reliable. When you take that step, you make everything unknowable which is the definition of solipsism. I don't need 100% to be sure enough to behave as though my observations are at least close enough. The trouble here is that you've taken the lack or that 100% as the central theme for your argument and based it all of a solipsistic idea, even though you seem to be backing off of that now. If you're backing off of your major premise, you don't have a rest of the argument any more and you're back at square 1.