Materialism

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Materialism

I'm curious as to what you mean by "physicalness"? Materialism by definition is the assertion that all that exists is physical. So your claim is simply false by definition.

Perhaps you would be good enough to adumbrate UCE's argument and how you feel your contribution refutes it. I've read the link that UCE provided and as far as I can see the arguments on that page are sound.

No, here are the definitions:

Philosophical materialism (aka physicalism) :

Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material.

Materialism
"If you can't percieve 'it' or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist"

You are mistaken. Physicalism speaks about a phsycial substance in the universe, materialism speaks about everything is percievable.

Some people have added a strange twist to materialism but that is not being discussed here. It is also weak, akin to the "If you call what is ordinarily called a sparrow, a horse, you can then prove that horses have wings" argument.

The real problem with materialism is obtained when you examine the first premise:

1) The definition of the universe is such that all things that exist are contained in the universe.

This is why most materialists have dropped this premise. You can argue that if the universe is infinite then it is not possible to have a definition of the universe. Hence putting clauses on such a definition is useless.

There is your opening.

But you still have to deal with the meat of materialism. Again, that is:

"If you can't percieve 'it' or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist"

Reducing it to something you can percieve includes defining black holes through mathmatics, etc..

 

[Q-Source]

I am trying to understand all this debate about body/mind problem.

Materialism works very well as a model of the physical Universe. It has been proven as the only metaphysical model to be effective.

Good.

The problems all arise when we start discussing the relationship between the physical Universe and the subjective realm of the mind.

The Hard Question...

As soon as one makes the claim that the mind is also part of the physical Universe one has gone beyond the normal boundaries of science and started making ontological/metaphysical i.e.philosophical claims.

What exactly is the mind?, Isn't it the state that arises from matter (brain)?

Can the mind arise from other thing besides the brain?

You are right in a way, I think that Science has nothing to do when we have to question about how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive reality, about what is real and what is subjective. They are purely philosophical issues.

But, shouldn't we start by assuming that the mind requires a body to exist?

There is a reason for this - that being that if one accepts that the nature of the relationship between mind and matter is a metaphysical rather than a scientific claim then science itself must accept certain limitations as to what it has a right to claim it can explain - and some people don't like this.

Maybe this is so because we humans have a tendency to explain everything around us and the most reliable method to do this is the scientific method.

This viewpoint is known as scientistic materialism i.e. the attempt to apply the scientific method where it is inappropriate because the question at hand is philosophical.

You are right, however the problem arises when people claim that paranormal events interact with the physical world. So, I think that materialists have the right to examine and explain those events.

Most of it boils down to a failure to understand what Kant proved i.e. that there is a fundamental difference between "the world as we perceive it" and "the world in itself".

I agree with that. As I said, the problem is that people who claim that paranormal events (mental, non-physical events) interact with the physical world are contradicting themselves....and they give materialists a lot of headaches.

The most serious is the nature of time. After all, the Universe has been here for billions of years before there was any "consciousness" - at least that is the way it appears to the materialist.

What?

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, materialism is the claim that all things that exist can be percieved or reduced to such a state that they can be percieved.

The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.

Some materialist papers I have read have 'suggested' an additional premise reading:

3) All things that can be percieved are physical.

But most are content with the all things that exist can be percieved clause.

But this is not a definition. It is simply a condition. And BTW, phenomenal consciousness is clearly not perceivable.

Exist = =/ physical depending on your take of the word.

But let's accept premise 3) for fun.

1) The universe contains all things that exist.

2) If a human being cannot percieve 'it', or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist.

1, 2. 3) All things that exist can be percieved.

4) All things that can be percieved are physical.

3, 4. 5) All things that exist are physical.

Is this supposed to actually establish something? Because I'm afraid it doesn't. Your premises all presuppose the conclusion!

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I am trying to understand all this debate about body/mind problem.




Good.



The Hard Question...



What exactly is the mind?, Isn't it the state that arises from matter (brain)?

Can the mind arise from other thing besides the brain?

You are right in a way, I think that Science has nothing to do when we have to question about how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive reality, about what is real and what is subjective. They are purely philosophical issues.

But, shouldn't we start by assuming that the mind requires a body to exist?



Maybe this is so because we humans have a tendency to explain everything around us and the most reliable method to do this is the scientific method.



You are right, however the problem arises when people claim that paranormal events interact with the physical world. So, I think that materialists have the right to examine and explain those events.



I agree with that. As I said, the problem is that people who claim that paranormal events (mental, non-physical events) interact with the physical world are contradicting themselves....and they give materialists a lot of headaches.



What?

So you are saying that you believe that their is a different universe with non-physical events and that this universe doesn't interact with the physical events universe?

Why should we believe that? Do these things not exist? If they exist (and share the trait of existing) can they not interact?

What do you mean by physical?

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.


But this is not a definition. It is simply a condition. And BTW, phenomenal consciousness is clearly not perceivable.



Is this supposed to actually establish something? Because I'm afraid it doesn't. Your premises all presuppose the conclusion!

That is correct, materialism presupposes and objective reality. It puts a clause on existence being that to exist something must be able to be percieved or reduced to such a state that it can be percieved. There is no loop, materialism presupposes and objective reality. Please begin reading my posts several times as you are demonstrating a failure to accurately disseminate the information.

The premises are closely inter-related. They are premises, not proof.

And you are telling me that consciousness is not percievable? You cannot percieve your own conscoiusness? Then how do you know it is there?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans

BANG!

Uhh? I didn't hear anything. You are not going into all caps anytime soon, I trust?

Immediately the problem is demonstrated. Science doesn't show us an observable universe! CONSCIOUSNESS shows us an observable Universe! Science allows us to model the behaviour of the observable Universe. You go on to say...

Uhh, yes. Without consciousness we would have little science. Science allows us to model the universe, and the universe generally follows the predictions of the model, or, when it does not, we are able to modify the model to fit the new data. Where is the problem?

Which pretty much sums up the problem. You SEE a Universe, then you claim it self-exists, independent of you SEEING it. You are confusing your perceptions with reality itself. Materialism is therefore based on a fundamentally flawed conception of reality. You only know it is there because you SENSE it, but you immediately claim that science told you it was there, which is totally incorrect, you then claim that materialism is based on this fundamental misconception. QED.

Yes, I see a universe. This universe has all the signs of being perfectly able to function whether I observe it or not, so I assume it does. What is your evidence that this is flawed? If my perception is not based on stimuli from reality, then what do you suggest it is based on?

So far this prediction has held for everything except for phenomenal consciousness, and in this case science has flapped around like a proverbial fish out of water, making no noticeable progress in 400 years. Not surprsingly really, since it was never a scientific question in the first place.

What exactly do you mean by this? I can't find "phenomenal consciousness" in my dictionary.



I mean...



If you don't know the difference between a working assumption and a conclusion then we might as well give up talking about it.

I do apologize for not living up to your intellectual standards, but try and bear with me.

Dictionary for conclusion: A judgment or decision reached after deliberation.

Once you use this as basis for further research or deliberation, you have a working assumption.

Specify please. Which 'project'?

Any scientific project will use conclusions from earlier projects as working assumptions.

Rubbish. You do not understand how consciousness 'emerges' from matter any more than the Christians understand how Jesus rose form the dead. It is PURE FAITH.

No, it is conclusion from evidence.

You can 'insist' on whatever you like.

Yes, can't we all?

There is no materialistic explanation for the emergence of phenomenal consciousness from matter because the whole idea is based on a conceptual metaphysical logical flaw brought about by a failure to understand Emmanuel Kant and a lack of due respect for philosophy.

I have to admit my partial ignorance on Kant. Whether my respect for philosophy is due can no doubt be subject to individual interpretation.

All of which provide evidence of a close correlation between mind and brain which isn't being disputed. Lots of evidence - but unfortunately it is evidence for the wrong thing.

Only because you want it to be wrong, methinks. The phenomenon consciousness is closely related to the organ brain. Not only is there an interspecies correlation between brain size and conscious behavior, but interference with brain function interferes with consciousness function. Based on such evidence, for which other organ function would you doubt a causal connection?

Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

Rusty :



Depends what you are trying to 'reduce it' to. I can very easily 'reduce' everything to conciousness. Is that 'materialism'?



Materialism, by definition, says you can reduce 'it' to 'matter'. I don't know where you are getting your definition from - but it sounds more like monism in general than materialism.

Well they would still say perceivers can be reduced to that which is perceived which is incoherent.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Well they would still say perceivers can be reduced to that which is perceived which is incoherent.

So if you see yourself in the mirror does your head explode?

What happens when I percieve myself? Does this incoherence do something? Maybe that's what makes our heads explode.

 

[Q-Source]

UCE
If you don't know the difference between a working assumption and a conclusion then we might as well give up talking about it.

Hans
Once you use this as basis for further research or deliberation, you have a working assumption.

Sorry Hans, but UCE is right. You cannot compare a conclusion with a working assumption. An assumption is just like a frame of reference, it may be or may not be true.

For example, in Economics we always make the following assumptions: there is perfect information among consumers and producers, goods are homogeneous, agents are rationals, there is free entry to the market, etc.

Q-S

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I believe that UE likes to bring up Kant but is closer to the stated essays of Hume. He seems to almost be suggesting that Kant does not believe in objective reality, when Kant was one of the biggest supporters of such a view.

 

[Q-Source]

So you are saying that you believe that their is a different universe with non-physical events and that this universe doesn't
interact with the physical events universe?

I am trying to understand UCE's point of view.

I am assuming that if he is right, then there shoudn't be any interaction between the physical and mental states. If there is an interaction, then we have the right to apply the scientific method to explain that phenomenon. Ultimately, it is having an effect on the physical world.

Why should we believe that? Do these things not exist? If they exist (and share the trait of existing) can they not interact?
What do you mean by physical?

I don't know if those things exist.

If they interact with the physical (material world), then they do matter and we should pay more attention to them.

If they don't, then UCE is right and Science should not have a word on it.

Q-S

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.

II
But this is not a definition. It is simply a condition. And BTW, phenomenal consciousness is clearly not perceivable.


II
Is this supposed to actually establish something? Because I'm afraid it doesn't. Your premises all presuppose the conclusion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Robot said in response to all the above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is correct,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which case your "argument" was entirely vacuous. So why did you make it?? This is what you said in blue.


Exist = =/ physical depending on your take of the word.

But let's accept premise 3) for fun.

1) The universe contains all things that exist.

2) If a human being cannot percieve 'it', or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist.

1, 2. 3) All things that exist can be percieved.

4) All things that can be percieved are physical.

3, 4. 5) All things that exist are physical.


Now if you agree that this establishes nothing whatsoever then why bother typing it out?

materialism presupposes and objective reality.

You love imprecision don't you? Better would be to say that not only does an objective reality exist, but that it is wholly objective. But even that definition just leads to confusion. Better would be to say that reality is exhausted by all that discernable from a third person perspective.

It puts a clause on existence being that to exist something must be able to be percieved or reduced to such a state that it can be percieved. There is no loop, materialism presupposes and objective reality.

So what? So does idealism. So does dualism etc etc. Now you claim there is no vicious ontological loop. Please explain the error in my reasoning. For your convenience I will reproduce my argument (in indigo).


The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.

Please begin reading my posts several times as you are demonstrating a failure to accurately disseminate the information.

There is no information contained within them. You have yet to demonstrate that the refutation of materialism is unsound.

And you are telling me that consciousness is not percievable?

But of course it isn't! English isn't your native language is it? That at least is very clear. Perceivers are not themselves perceivable. What would it mean to sensorily percieve someone elses experience of despair? We infer internal states from bodily behaviour. We can onlyhave an unmediated knowledge of someone elses mind either by telepathy or our separate minds becoming one.

You cannot percieve your own conscoiusness?
Then how do you know it is there?

How do you think?? Dear me! We have a direct unmediated knowledge of our own phenomenal consciousness. Study what Descartes said about it then you might be able to understand.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I am not arguing about whether the behaviour of the physical world is objective. I am arguing about whether the physical world self-exists independently of Mind.

Ah I stupidly missed this until just now.

So this is the discussion! Well I cannot prove to you that the world exists objectively!

There is anecdotal evidence that suggests the world exists objectively.

We all seem to share certain experiences and those experiences appear to be repeatable (i.e. if you drop a ball it falls down), but of cource I cannot prove that this is truly happening.

This is more of an epistomological argument, which is not my area of expertise.

I am curious, though, can you support the position that we should believe that the world exists only subjectively (whether that be in our "minds" or some other way)? I mean, I can offer a lot of anecdotal evidence, but can you?

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

In which case your "argument" was entirely vacuous. So why did you make it?? This is what you said in blue.


Exist = =/ physical depending on your take of the word.

But let's accept premise 3) for fun.

1) The universe contains all things that exist.

2) If a human being cannot percieve 'it', or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist.

1, 2. 3) All things that exist can be percieved.

4) All things that can be percieved are physical.

3, 4. 5) All things that exist are physical.


Now if you agree that this establishes nothing whatsoever then why bother typing it out?



You love imprecision don't you? Better would be to say that not only does an objective reality exist, but that it is wholly objective. But even that definition just leads to confusion. Better would be to say that reality is exhausted by all that discernable from a third person perspective.



So what? So does idealism. So does dualism etc etc. Now you claim there is no vicious ontological loop. Please explain the error in my reasoning. For your convenience I will reproduce my argument (in indigo).


The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.





There is no information contained within them. You have yet to demonstrate that the refutation of materialism is unsound.



But of course it isn't! English isn't your native language is it? That at least is very clear. Perceivers are not themselves perceivable. What would it mean to sensorily percieve someone elses experience of despair? We infer internal states from bodily behaviour. We can onlyhave an unmediated knowledge of someone elses mind either by telepathy or our separate minds becoming one.



How do you think?? Dear me! We have a direct unmediated knowledge of our own phenomenal consciousness. Study what Descartes said about it then you might be able to understand.

I am not going to read your personal attack upon me. You are very confused. You were nearly correct when you said:

Your premises all presuppose the conclusion!

But I should have been more clear. They don't presuppose the conclusion, but they were crafted directly to achieve the conclusion.

The premises I put forward are the premises of the materialist. I'm sorry you cannot understand this.

Materialism is not saying that the percieving of things makes them exist, it is saying that things that exist can be percieved.

Please read that sentance again.

And again.

And again.

Wow, does this not look like our conversation?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Unfortunatley I have to run. I'll try to make some time later as I think this might be interesting.

For that scenario to transpire you'll need to say something of substance first.

Just to let you know, I believe that materialism is a valid argument.

Materialism is not an argument, it is a metaphysic.

I'm not sure where that "physicalism" or physical materialism or whatever we shall call it came from.

I've never heard of "physical materialism". I very much doubt there is any such thing since non-physical materialism is an oxymoron. Physicalism was a term coined due to the recognition that the notion of material substance is incoherent.

I am mostly interested in the free will debate, which is where I came into contact with materialism. Metaphysics are not my thing.

One can tell looking at your "arguments".

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

For that scenario to transpire you'll need to say something of substance first.

What an astounding argument. Obviously Rusty is mistaken.

Materialism is not an argument, it is a metaphysic.

Do you know what an argument is? Here is a link for you www.m-w.com, try looking up that word.

I've never heard of "physical materialism". I very much doubt there is any such thing since non-physical materialism is an oxymoron. Physicalism was a term coined due to the recognition that the notion of material substance is incoherent.

Then you, obviously, have not read this thread. With each of your posts I read your ignorance and refusal to learn become more and more apparent. You are the second person to be placed on my ignore list.

Good day,

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


In which case your "argument" was entirely vacuous. So why did you make it?? This is what you said in blue.


Exist = =/ physical depending on your take of the word.

But let's accept premise 3) for fun.

1) The universe contains all things that exist.

2) If a human being cannot percieve 'it', or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist.

1, 2. 3) All things that exist can be percieved.

4) All things that can be percieved are physical.

3, 4. 5) All things that exist are physical.


Now if you agree that this establishes nothing whatsoever then why bother typing it out?



You love imprecision don't you? Better would be to say that not only does an objective reality exist, but that it is wholly objective. But even that definition just leads to confusion. Better would be to say that reality is exhausted by all that discernable from a third person perspective.



So what? So does idealism. So does dualism etc etc. Now you claim there is no vicious ontological loop. Please explain the error in my reasoning. For your convenience I will reproduce my argument (in indigo).


The "material" world exists in abstraction from being perceived. Otherwise it is not materialism. If the "material" world cannot be sensibly be said to exist in abstraction from being perceived, then how can you maintain that the perceiver, doing the perceiving, can be reduced to that which can only be said to sensibly exist by virtue of being perceived? You're creating a vicious ontological loop.





There is no information contained within them. You have yet to demonstrate that the refutation of materialism is unsound.



But of course it isn't! English isn't your native language is it? That at least is very clear. Perceivers are not themselves perceivable. What would it mean to sensorily percieve someone elses experience of despair? We infer internal states from bodily behaviour. We can onlyhave an unmediated knowledge of someone elses mind either by telepathy or our separate minds becoming one.



How do you think?? Dear me! We have a direct unmediated knowledge of our own phenomenal consciousness. Study what Descartes said about it then you might be able to understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not going to read your personal attack upon me.

The fact that you think it was a personnel attack clearly implies that you haven't read it. If you do not intend to read my corrections of your errors how do you expect to learn anything??

You are very confused.

That's interesting. You think I'm confused even though you haven't read what I said?? If you're not prepared to address my arguments then I suggest you decease being such a tosser and don't bother replying to me.

You were nearly correct when you said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your premises all presuppose the conclusion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact I was unambigiously completely correct.

But I should have been more clear. They don't presuppose the conclusion, but they were crafted directly to achieve the conclusion.

I suggest you reread what you wrote. Your premises implicitly presuppose the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.

I don't intend to keep repeating myself. Try to get a better grasp of the English language.

The premises I put forward are the premises of the materialist. I'm sorry you cannot understand this.

I understand this perfectly. Therefore if the premises presuppose materilism thye cannot be used to justify materialism.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry Hans, but UCE is right. You cannot compare a conclusion with a working assumption. An assumption is just like a frame of reference, it may be or may not be true.

Of course I can compare them. Equal them I can not, and I really did not claim to. It was UCE who started to call what I had called an assumption, a conclusion. But conclusions also may or may not be true.

For example, in Economics we always make the following assumptions: there is perfect information among consumers and producers, goods are homogeneous, agents are rationals, there is free entry to the market, etc.

Yeah, and the result is accordingly But seriously, this assumption is based either on a conclusion that this is close enough to reality or that the real information is too difficult to obtain (or, most likely, hehe, both).

But, I should know better than go into semantics.


Hans

 

[Guest]

Q:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As soon as one makes the claim that the mind is also part of the physical Universe one has gone beyond the normal boundaries of science and started making ontological/metaphysical i.e.philosophical claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly is the mind?

Good question. Materialism doesn't have a sensible answer.

Isn't it the state that arises from matter (brain)?

According to materialist dogma it is.....

Can the mind arise from other thing besides the brain?

Perhaps it doesn't 'arise' from anything at all. Perhaps it is the thing that everything else is made of.

Every night when you dream you are experiencing a material world that isn't really there.....

You are right in a way, I think that Science has nothing to do when we have to question about how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive reality, about what is real and what is subjective. They are purely philosophical issues.

Good. Trouble is that the boundary between science and philosophy has become blurred here because of the relationship between science and materialism. Many scientists, including some long-standing high-profile members of this forum evidently cannot seperate their metaphysical beliefs from the discipline of science. Materialism and science are not the same thing. I must have told Stimpson this at least 150 times.

But, shouldn't we start by assuming that the mind requires a body to exist?

No. We should start by assuming nothing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a reason for this - that being that if one accepts that the nature of the relationship between mind and matter is a metaphysical rather than a scientific claim then science itself must accept certain limitations as to what it has a right to claim it can explain - and some people don't like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this is so because we humans have a tendency to explain everything around us and the most reliable method to do this is the scientific method.

There are lots of historical reasons for this. However, if science cannot answer a particular question then cannot answer a particular question. There has been a tendency to insist on scientific evidence for something which science cannot address, even in principle.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This viewpoint is known as scientistic materialism i.e. the attempt to apply the scientific method where it is inappropriate because the question at hand is philosophical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are right, however the problem arises when people claim that paranormal events interact with the physical world. So, I think that materialists have the right to examine and explain those events.

They do, but they must also remember that when they are examining reports of such events that materialism may not be true. The problem is that materialism renders all such events impossible, so the materialist assumes that all the evidence is bogus and discounts it without taking it seriously. Materialistic assumptions litter the debate like thrown away McDonalds cartons.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of it boils down to a failure to understand what Kant proved i.e. that there is a fundamental difference between "the world as we perceive it" and "the world in itself".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with that. As I said, the problem is that people who claim that paranormal events (mental, non-physical events) interact with the physical world are contradicting themselves....and they give materialists a lot of headaches.

Depends what you mean by "interact". The materialists headaches are largely of their own making.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most serious is the nature of time. After all, the Universe has been here for billions of years before there was any "consciousness" - at least that is the way it appears to the materialist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?

The whole concept of 'beginning' and 'ending' with linear time in between is associated with metaphysical materialism. In fact Kant also proved that time is a means of human perception - something we impose on the "real world". From the point of view of consciousness (i.e. idealism) there is no beginning and there is no end, there is only NOW.

This is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Idealism can provide a means of looking at all four dimensions of space-time in the same way - both extend potentially infinitely in both directions away from any one point. The Universe is limited to that which has been observed, both in terms of space and time, but further observations can extend infinitely.

G

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Q:




Good question. Materialism doesn't have a sensible answer.



According to materialist dogma it is.....



Perhaps it doesn't 'arise' from anything at all. Perhaps it is the thing that everything else is made of.

Every night when you dream you are experiencing a material world that isn't really there.....

Materialism doesn't need to answer this question, it is outside the scope of the premises.

Good. Trouble is that the boundary between science and philosophy has become blurred here because of the relationship between science and materialism. Many scientists, including some long-standing high-profile members of this forum evidently cannot seperate their metaphysical beliefs from the discipline of science. Materialism and science are not the same thing. I must have told Stimpson this at least 150 times.

No. We should start by assuming nothing.

There are lots of historical reasons for this. However, if science cannot answer a particular question then cannot answer a particular question. There has been a tendency to insist on scientific evidence for something which science cannot address, even in principle.

There is no boundary between science and philosophy. Philosophy tries to figure out certain questions to ask, but it cannot answer them.

They do, but they must also remember that when they are examining reports of such events that materialism may not be true. The problem is that materialism renders all such events impossible, so the materialist assumes that all the evidence is bogus and discounts it without taking it seriously. Materialistic assumptions litter the debate like thrown away McDonalds cartons.

Depends what you mean by "interact". The materialists headaches are largely of their own making.

You still do not understand what materialism is. You are not talking about materialism, you are talking about subjective existence. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SUBJECTIVE EXISTENCE. If I yell perhaps you will hear me.

Materialists are talking about objective existence.

The whole concept of 'beginning' and 'ending' with linear time in between is associated with metaphysical materialism. In fact Kant also proved that time is a means of human perception - something we impose on the "real world". From the point of view of consciousness (i.e. idealism) there is no beginning and there is no end, there is only NOW.

This is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Idealism can provide a means of looking at all four dimensions of space-time in the same way - both extend potentially infinitely in both directions away from any one point. The Universe is limited to that which has been observed, both in terms of space and time, but further observations can extend infinitely.

Materialism would say that we know time is real because we can percieve it. KANT AGREES. You are very confused! KANT AGREES WITH THE MATERIALIST.

Hume is the one who disagreed!

Yes, we only understand time (and anything) through our subjective perceptions but they exist objectively! This is objective reality! Kant argued for objectively reality!

ARGH.