malfunktion
New Blood
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2003
- Messages
- 14
Been having this debate with a Christian friend about the viability of a purely materialist world for a while now. Thought I'd share one of his most recent responses and see how the randiites react in comparison to myself. Youre seeing this in the middle of a debate but I think you can get an idea of the concepts being debated. The backbone of my friend's whole argument begins with the assertion:
Material constantly changes.
The self exists and never changes.
Therefore, the self is not material.
Anyways, here's his latest response:
--please read the whole thing once before responding--
Unfortunently, your desires for a materialist world are too strong to battle even the clearest form of truth: the self. I feel like I've done my best here. You guys just don't want to believe in something that leaves room for an immaterial realm of existence because you want to define everything in a material manner.
The definition of the "I" is not a material definition, just like that of "pain." If you believe in "pain," then try defining it in a purely material manner. You can say that when my leg is cut some chemicals send signals into my brain giving me knowledge that my leg has been cut, but what is it in those chemcials that "hurts?" "Hurting" is not present in the chemicals. At a material level, the best thing we can describe is the information, call it "leg is cut", being sent to the brain. The chemical information "leg is cut" is not sufficient because my knowledge of a wound on my leg is much different than my sensations of a wound on my leg. I experience the information "leg is cut", in a first person perspective, as "pain." But how do we define pain? We can only explain it from a first person perspective. Pain might be defined as that which I experience when I have the knowledge that something is physically or emotionally messed up. Yet look at that definition. It lacks everything you are asking for me to create as a definition for the self - all it consists of is "experience" tied to reality. But that lack of material essence does not mean that the definition is lacking something necessary! Just because we can't attach a rigid material definition to something so clearly experienced like pain, does not mean we have missed something. We're just bridging the gap in belief between the material world and the immaterial world. Now take this first person observation of pain a step futher: who is experiencing pain?
That's all I'm doing. I'm taking chemical knowledge a step further and asking: who has this knowledge? The answer, I must admit, is not a "wonderful" material answer.
I gave this definition earlier and I think it's still quite clear:
I'm not defining the "I" as material. If you honestly don't think the "I" exists in this way, then you'll need to explain the permenance of these ever useful "my experiences," "my thoughts," "my personality," comments. If your definition of the "self" works with your purely material belief system, then be happy that you've resolved an anceint problem with materialism. In fact, you better write a book!
--
I don't think I've made this claim. The self experience is bodily. I am tied to a material reality even though this "I" is immaterial.
Ok, so who views those images? Who experiences those memories? When memories are lost, am "I" lost as well or is it just my memories? And as a pointless bit of info, there is not a "viewing screen" by which sights and memories are experienced in the human body. We're wired to receive input, but we don't have a screen to display it on. Sights are seen by those who have no material screen. Maybe another imaterial truth?
You say this ONLY because I'm not defining it as material. I'm defining it based on the way it is experienced. Just like pain.
If by connotations you mean experiences, then I think you're right. Fortunently, the "I" has experiences such as behavior and knowledge.
Walk around your room once and ask yourself: did "I" remain the same when my individual perceptions changed?
If it truly works well in your belief system that your "I" changes when you walk around the room, then I'd like to encourage you to write a book about it becauase this view has been completely unacceptable to a community that has laws. I'd buy your book.
Letters represent. What do you want me to say the "I" is Mal? Something you can see? Something you can touch? All the things you can see and touch do not remain the same. The "I" is immaterial permancence that is experienced in a material reality. You'll continue to believe I'm not defining "I" as long as you continue to believe that only those things which are "material" exist...and you won't be a very good student in your quantum physics class either.
Oh yeah and What is "consciousness?"
Is it obvious yet that material permancence does not pan out?
I don't think someone died who is living.
If by evidence you mean the most obvious truth or first person perspective or the perspective which investigates all other evidence, then yes, I think there is evidence to suggest a self. Philosophical evidence, sure, that's what we're doing here. Gut feeling? Well, the self has the "gut feeling" so yeah, I'd say it's a gut feeling as well.
"I" is metaphysical, yet nothing I know of the metaphysical is detached from my knowledge of the physical or material.
Sitting in a car, I am completely detached from it. I don't feel it when someone hits my car with a bat. All I have in my car is knowledge and this doesn't seem to be the case with my body. I can't get out of my body and walk around the classroom I'm teaching in. My body seems to be a necessary part of my "I" experience.
Most dualists differentiate the "I" and the material like they would a man sitting in a car. I just don't think experience lends us this differentiation.
I think the self and the material the self exists with come to be right at conception. I say this because as we mature, our self remains the same. So with that view, you see that the whole is prior to the parts, right? Sperm and egg => human. I'm not ruling out epiphenomenalism - the view that complexity of material gives rise to the metaphysical.
The reason for a self existing at conception is quite personal: I cannot accept abortion as an option for irresponsibility. Maybe this is just pragmatic in the sense that it fits with the morality I live out, in fact, it is. I have a lot of reasoning that certainly gives light to the benefits of holding this view of the self.
If we draw a line somewhere after conception to demonstrate life or "selfness," we instantly enter into a violation of what I would consider the value of humanity. I look at humanity and decide the we should continue to exist because I think we have the highest potential to benefit the continuation of life in general. For this reason, I think we should place an incredibly high value on the process by which humans exist. We are vital. If we take a line and determine human life is only valuable after it, we're not placing the process towards life as a sacred value. We must care for life to have life. Devaluing human life is in essense our own demise....so I've decided not to do it. To increasingly value human life is to be moral, not absolutely, but in part. I am evaluating parts that will mature to resemble the human body. In my assesment, they are incredibly valuable. Placing the same priority on these parts as I might a fully mature human body is more moral than devaluing their worth. Something about the human body is sacred and should be cared for. Call it reciprical action, a soul, life, the self...whatever, I think our laws (against murder) are based upon this sacredness of humanity and I want to encorage this to continue. I want to increasingly value humanity.
P.S. I think the downfall of the Christain worldview has been some misconception about "living for a life that is to come." You'd probably totally agree with what I'm singing these days as a Christain: I want to serve the goodness in humanity. I have a somewhat bitter attitude towards some of the advice that Christains in my area have unemotionally offered, which is the same advice we all give at times. Like when someone is in pain: "Oh, don't worry, you'll be better in the future." This detachment from the moment pain occurs is so unkind, so unfriendly, but in it is a hint of goodness: hope. I think we ought to hope, but friendship isn't about basting eachother with hope apart from reality. We ought to morn together when things suck without some pompus remark like, "I know that in the end God is doing this for your best interests" or "don't despair, this is just temporary." Oh my gosh, just saying that get's me fired up! It might be an appropriate remark looking back, but in the moment it just seems so careless....almost like we'd only say something like that to make ourselves feel better for what is happening to someone else. --- After we get through this discussion, the absolute truth discussion, and the Plato discussion, I plan to post some stuff about Christianity in the religion forum.
No living entity is purely material. I'd includ plants as living. I may even include desks and rocks one day, but so far I haven't seen any reason to do that. It seems that only living things naturally strike me as containing a permanence through change. Desks and cars certainly don't strike me that way. A purely material entity is devoid of any metaphysical substance.
Note: this discussion is going nowhere fast as long as you continue to assume everything needs a material definition.
Material constantly changes.
The self exists and never changes.
Therefore, the self is not material.
Anyways, here's his latest response:
--please read the whole thing once before responding--
Unfortunently, your desires for a materialist world are too strong to battle even the clearest form of truth: the self. I feel like I've done my best here. You guys just don't want to believe in something that leaves room for an immaterial realm of existence because you want to define everything in a material manner.
The definition of the "I" is not a material definition, just like that of "pain." If you believe in "pain," then try defining it in a purely material manner. You can say that when my leg is cut some chemicals send signals into my brain giving me knowledge that my leg has been cut, but what is it in those chemcials that "hurts?" "Hurting" is not present in the chemicals. At a material level, the best thing we can describe is the information, call it "leg is cut", being sent to the brain. The chemical information "leg is cut" is not sufficient because my knowledge of a wound on my leg is much different than my sensations of a wound on my leg. I experience the information "leg is cut", in a first person perspective, as "pain." But how do we define pain? We can only explain it from a first person perspective. Pain might be defined as that which I experience when I have the knowledge that something is physically or emotionally messed up. Yet look at that definition. It lacks everything you are asking for me to create as a definition for the self - all it consists of is "experience" tied to reality. But that lack of material essence does not mean that the definition is lacking something necessary! Just because we can't attach a rigid material definition to something so clearly experienced like pain, does not mean we have missed something. We're just bridging the gap in belief between the material world and the immaterial world. Now take this first person observation of pain a step futher: who is experiencing pain?
That's all I'm doing. I'm taking chemical knowledge a step further and asking: who has this knowledge? The answer, I must admit, is not a "wonderful" material answer.
I gave this definition earlier and I think it's still quite clear:
I'm not defining the "I" as material. If you honestly don't think the "I" exists in this way, then you'll need to explain the permenance of these ever useful "my experiences," "my thoughts," "my personality," comments. If your definition of the "self" works with your purely material belief system, then be happy that you've resolved an anceint problem with materialism. In fact, you better write a book!
--
I don't think I've made this claim. The self experience is bodily. I am tied to a material reality even though this "I" is immaterial.
Ok, so who views those images? Who experiences those memories? When memories are lost, am "I" lost as well or is it just my memories? And as a pointless bit of info, there is not a "viewing screen" by which sights and memories are experienced in the human body. We're wired to receive input, but we don't have a screen to display it on. Sights are seen by those who have no material screen. Maybe another imaterial truth?
You say this ONLY because I'm not defining it as material. I'm defining it based on the way it is experienced. Just like pain.
If by connotations you mean experiences, then I think you're right. Fortunently, the "I" has experiences such as behavior and knowledge.
Walk around your room once and ask yourself: did "I" remain the same when my individual perceptions changed?
If it truly works well in your belief system that your "I" changes when you walk around the room, then I'd like to encourage you to write a book about it becauase this view has been completely unacceptable to a community that has laws. I'd buy your book.
Letters represent. What do you want me to say the "I" is Mal? Something you can see? Something you can touch? All the things you can see and touch do not remain the same. The "I" is immaterial permancence that is experienced in a material reality. You'll continue to believe I'm not defining "I" as long as you continue to believe that only those things which are "material" exist...and you won't be a very good student in your quantum physics class either.
Oh yeah and What is "consciousness?"
Is it obvious yet that material permancence does not pan out?
I don't think someone died who is living.
If by evidence you mean the most obvious truth or first person perspective or the perspective which investigates all other evidence, then yes, I think there is evidence to suggest a self. Philosophical evidence, sure, that's what we're doing here. Gut feeling? Well, the self has the "gut feeling" so yeah, I'd say it's a gut feeling as well.
"I" is metaphysical, yet nothing I know of the metaphysical is detached from my knowledge of the physical or material.
Sitting in a car, I am completely detached from it. I don't feel it when someone hits my car with a bat. All I have in my car is knowledge and this doesn't seem to be the case with my body. I can't get out of my body and walk around the classroom I'm teaching in. My body seems to be a necessary part of my "I" experience.
Most dualists differentiate the "I" and the material like they would a man sitting in a car. I just don't think experience lends us this differentiation.
I think the self and the material the self exists with come to be right at conception. I say this because as we mature, our self remains the same. So with that view, you see that the whole is prior to the parts, right? Sperm and egg => human. I'm not ruling out epiphenomenalism - the view that complexity of material gives rise to the metaphysical.
The reason for a self existing at conception is quite personal: I cannot accept abortion as an option for irresponsibility. Maybe this is just pragmatic in the sense that it fits with the morality I live out, in fact, it is. I have a lot of reasoning that certainly gives light to the benefits of holding this view of the self.
If we draw a line somewhere after conception to demonstrate life or "selfness," we instantly enter into a violation of what I would consider the value of humanity. I look at humanity and decide the we should continue to exist because I think we have the highest potential to benefit the continuation of life in general. For this reason, I think we should place an incredibly high value on the process by which humans exist. We are vital. If we take a line and determine human life is only valuable after it, we're not placing the process towards life as a sacred value. We must care for life to have life. Devaluing human life is in essense our own demise....so I've decided not to do it. To increasingly value human life is to be moral, not absolutely, but in part. I am evaluating parts that will mature to resemble the human body. In my assesment, they are incredibly valuable. Placing the same priority on these parts as I might a fully mature human body is more moral than devaluing their worth. Something about the human body is sacred and should be cared for. Call it reciprical action, a soul, life, the self...whatever, I think our laws (against murder) are based upon this sacredness of humanity and I want to encorage this to continue. I want to increasingly value humanity.
P.S. I think the downfall of the Christain worldview has been some misconception about "living for a life that is to come." You'd probably totally agree with what I'm singing these days as a Christain: I want to serve the goodness in humanity. I have a somewhat bitter attitude towards some of the advice that Christains in my area have unemotionally offered, which is the same advice we all give at times. Like when someone is in pain: "Oh, don't worry, you'll be better in the future." This detachment from the moment pain occurs is so unkind, so unfriendly, but in it is a hint of goodness: hope. I think we ought to hope, but friendship isn't about basting eachother with hope apart from reality. We ought to morn together when things suck without some pompus remark like, "I know that in the end God is doing this for your best interests" or "don't despair, this is just temporary." Oh my gosh, just saying that get's me fired up! It might be an appropriate remark looking back, but in the moment it just seems so careless....almost like we'd only say something like that to make ourselves feel better for what is happening to someone else. --- After we get through this discussion, the absolute truth discussion, and the Plato discussion, I plan to post some stuff about Christianity in the religion forum.
No living entity is purely material. I'd includ plants as living. I may even include desks and rocks one day, but so far I haven't seen any reason to do that. It seems that only living things naturally strike me as containing a permanence through change. Desks and cars certainly don't strike me that way. A purely material entity is devoid of any metaphysical substance.
Note: this discussion is going nowhere fast as long as you continue to assume everything needs a material definition.
