Materialism and Immaterialism

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well, for a kick off it would maintain that phenomenal consciousness is the same type of existent as all other existents. Necessarily this is an ontological commitment, despite what Stimpson J Cat might maintain.

Comments anyone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't get how one can claim it is an ontological commitment when scientists clearly both state and act to test it as a conclusion.

How on earth could you conclude it's a physical thing? Obviously you can't do it by science, right? Certainly, at the very minimum, you must agree that science could never distinguish between materialism and epiphenomenalism, right? So how philosophically will you achieve this miraculous end?

We have no reason to asume it is different from other existents.

My phenomenal conscious experiences are only accessible to me. All other existents are potentially accessible to anyone.

We keep testing and keep finding no reason.

Please name anyone who experiences my experiences? What testing has established that another person can literally partake of someone else's experiences??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Again: define 'materialists' and 'materialism', please. I have yet to see an argument that anyone here is a materialist. [/B]

OK Wrath, what metaphysic do you espouse then?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

How do people who believe an undefinable "free will" is needed for us to be able to reach correct conclusions deal with calculators, or computers, or logical algorithms in general? Do they also have free will?

 

[Interesting Ian]

How do people who believe an undefinable "free will" is needed for us to be able to reach correct conclusions deal with calculators, or computers, or logical algorithms in general? Do they also have free will?

They were designed so as to operate correctly. Those who deny free will normally maintain that we weren't designed. And of course most of the time human beings are wrong. With what reason should a particular theory espoused by me be more likely to be correct than anyone else's? We are drawn irresistibly to the idea that a clear idea of some problem is laid clearly before the mind, and that, as conscious autonomous agents, we can see the solution to a problem. This requires a conscious agent who can actually choose between competing alternatives.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What, evolutionary processes can't select between different designs?

If it takes a mystical consciousness to choose the correct answers to problems, how does the world manage to reach the right answer? What guarantees that this mystical consciousness chooses correctly? And what does 'choice' mean if it's not the result of any process?

 

[BillHoyt]

How on earth could you conclude it's a physical thing? Obviously you can't do it by science, right? Certainly, at the very minimum, you must agree that science could never distinguish between materialism and epiphenomenalism, right? So how philosophically will you achieve this miraculous end?

Ian,

Do you really wish to claim that science can not test a claim of a one-sided interaction? How so?

 

[hammegk]

Let's assume we have free will, whatever the heck that is. How does that lead to "good ethics"?

Nope, but it puts responsibility for acts directly with the person performing them.

How is the purpose of free will determined? How are my intentions determined? What does it mean to say that at one moment in time I have a free choice between two paths, and in the next moment I choose one of them? What process occurs between those two moments?

~~ Paul

Those are the questions. You are willing to delare them meaningless since science cannot address them. BTW, that is an attribute of a "materialist" imo.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Nope, but it puts responsibility for acts directly with the person performing them.

In what way? Since their choice cannot proceed from any property they possess (otherwise it would be causality), how can they be responsible?

Furthermore, we can talk about computational devices making mistakes. We have no problem assigning "responsibility" to them. Do they have free will?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Nope, but it [free will] puts responsibility for acts directly with the person performing them.

No, it does not. It puts the responsibility on the undefined mechanism of free will, just as you insist that responsibility in a "materialist world" is on physics. Since the idea that responsibility is on a mechanism is absurd, then we simply declare, by agreement, that responsibility is on the person.

There is no need to assert the absurdity of responsibility being on a mechanism, decide you want it on the person, then postulate an agent for that responsibility. It requires you to keep the agent undefined, a charming ambiguity, so that it does not become just as absurd as putting responsibility on physics. What is the point of this exercise?

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

And while I'm at it:

Those are the questions. You are willing to delare them meaningless since science cannot address them. BTW, that is an attribute of a "materialist" imo.

No, I'm willing to declare them meaningless because rational thought cannot address them.

All this time you've been complaining about materialists when you were really opposing rationalists.

 

[hammegk]

All this time you've been complaining about materialists when you were really opposing rationalists.

Nope.

ra·tion·al·ism n.
1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

Just materialists/atheists/scientists.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Just materialists/atheists/scientists.

The standard definitions for those concepts provide no justification for linking them together in that way.

Again: please offer the definitions you are using for those concepts and present your arguments for the claims you make.

 

[hammegk]

Well, it's appearing you don't believe "materialist" has any meaning, although we can try this; materialist = 100% certain god cannot exist ; atheist = has 100% faith god does not exist ; scientist = 100% certain that rationalization can explain "what-is" with no need for god.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Now explain to us why your use of these pre-existing categories to reference the concepts you've just mentioned is justified.

 

[DrMatt]

There's a terminological problem here. At one point, "rationalism" was used for the notion of "figuring out the universe from first principles by logic", and it stood in opposition to "empiricism", which added in cycles of checking things against relevant evidence.

Outside of rarified halls of philosophy, "Rationalism" has come to be synonymous with "empiricism" as standing against authoritarian, revelationist, anecdotal, and traditionalist epistomologies. In other words, "pure reason" has been claimed by the more scholarly among the traditionalists (e.g. signs of it appear in C.S. Lewis) while the term "Rationalism" has come to mean the opposite of "Irrationalism", where "Irrationalism" refers to revelationism couched in emotional terms.

The neat thing about the Randi Challenge is that it just asks claimants to declare what they can do and then do it, without reference to whether a mystical/immaterial explanation for the alleged ability is required.

Yes, immaterialism is logically incoherent--and yes, lots of people latch onto it and willfully ignore its incoherence. It's hardly unique in that respect. Omnipotence is similarly a logically incoherent concept which tons of people believe in.

 

[hammegk]

The neat thing about the Randi Challenge is that it just asks claimants to declare what they can do and then do it, without reference to whether a mystical/immaterial explanation for the alleged ability is required.

Yeah, that is in no way different from what an objective idealist would ask, either. "Mysticism" is another problem word too.

mys·ti·cism n.
A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

That's the second defintion, although I'd say:
"A belief in the existence of realities beyond (current) perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being."

"subjective experience": another semantic wonder.

Yes, immaterialism is logically incoherent--...

You could be right. Your definition of immaterialism is, what?

I'd like to discover the point you believe is most illogical, define it as you will. Or maybe the top two most illogical positions?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No. I've had enough of this game.

We won't patiently explain our positions and our problems with what little of your argument we can piece together from your veiled assertions and intimations. Either present your arguments and state your position, or quit expecting us to humor your little attention-grabbing attempts.

 

[apoger]

... although we can try this; materialist = 100% certain god cannot exist ; atheist = has 100% faith god does not exist ; scientist = 100% certain that rationalization can explain "what-is" with no need for god.

We certainly "can try this" however I must ask if you are offering this as what you believe to be the definitions, or if by saying "can try this" you are merely offering conjecture on the potential non-standard meanings?

If this conjecture, what's the purpose? Wouldn't using non-standard definitions lead to miscommunication and confusion?

If this is not conjecture, the definitions are incorrect.

materialist = 100% certain god cannot exist

A commonly accepted definition of materialist would be: A person that advocates the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.


This has nothing to say about god.

atheist = has 100% faith god does not exist

Atheism is not a faith, but is lack of faith.
A more appropriate definition of Atheist would be: A person that lacks Theism.

Lack of belief is not an opposing belief.

The assertion that god does not exist is best descibed by the term anti-theist.

scientist = 100% certain that rationalization can explain "what-is" with no need for god

A Scientist is simply: A person that is an advocate of the scientific method.

Science is a methodology for examining the universe. It does not make absolute statements.


Is there any particular reason why you tacked 100% certainty of the non-existence of god onto each of these definitions?

 

[jj]

Will no one attempt to explain how free will works?

~~ Paul

QM.

Simply put, when the chemical processes in the brain actually take place, the "participation" of each molecule or atom depends on the QM behavior of (mostly) it's electrons. This means that things never are QUITE the same from time to time. Very occasionally, some new idea will emerge or happen, simply because something happened in a different order, even if only because something massively improbable happened.

Neural nets are massively chaotic systems, and all it takes is one change in ordering to change an entire sequence of occurances.

Yes, this is a pure "wetware" explaination, material all the way to the bottom.

 

[jj]

If we do not have a free will and everything we do proceeds according to physical laws,

Just to be clear, we can have a free will inside of "physical laws" once we realize QM is nothing but a description of how material works.