Materialism

[Guest]

Hans :

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.

Erm...I think Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schroedinger may disagree with you on this one.

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?

Sure, it is based on information contained within the physcial world. I am suggesting that the physical world itself is composed of information existing in a mental realm which encompasses all things.

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

I mean science has not explained why consciousness exists at all. Consciousness is just 'tacked on' to the physical world, as II puts it.

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

http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/thingdef1.htm

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.

Nope. It is just wrong. I never once stated there was not a very close correlation between mind and brain. I am interested in the thing which makes them different (since being correlates there must be a difference - else they would be the same thing....)

 

[Interesting Ian]

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? [/B]

You said before (your contribution in blue)


This should help you quickly understand why UE's argument is invalid. No where does materialism claim that all things that exist somehow posses the trait of "physicalness" nor does materialism claim that "physicalness" is somehow different from "mentalness".


Your statement then implies that the empirical realm could well be mental. This will still be materialism if our consciousnesses or perceivers can be reduced to this mental realm.

If reality is wholly mental, then the perception of that reality would therefore seem to be a vital ingredient in establishing and defining its existence. In which case the perceiving of things can make things exist, even under materialism. This of course creates the vicious ontological loop.

I think that therefore materialism under your definition ie "If you can't percieve 'it' or reduce 'it' to something you can, then 'it' does not exist" is unadvisable. You need to augment it by asserting that the material world also exists in abstraction from being perceived.

 

[Guest]

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.

Actually my true philosophical position is closer to that of Schopenhauer or Hegel, and is really derived from Berkeley. I use Kant as an example because he frames the problem most succinctly and clearly. Schopenhaeur and Hegel were much closer to the truth, but also far more contraversial, since both of them start from an acceptance of idealism as an inevitable truth.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Hans :

Sure, it is based on information contained within the physcial world. I am suggesting that the physical world itself is composed of information existing in a mental realm which encompasses all things.

Then how is this "mental realm" any different from the "physical realm"?

I mean science has not explained why consciousness exists at all. Consciousness is just 'tacked on' to the physical world, as II puts it.

No one has proven conscoiusness exists in any meaningful way either.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Since materialism is based on observational evidence, it makes little sense for a materialist to consider idealism (as long as no evidence exists for it).
Hans

There is no evidence, observational or otherwise, for materialism. The materialist metaphysic is moreover unintelligible.

 

[Guest]

Q:

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.

Again - it depends what you mean by 'interact'. Take the example of Schroedingers cat - it is entirely possible that the cat is both dead and alive till it is observed. The observation forces the 'collapse of the wave-function' and the cat ends up either dead or alive. There has been an interaction here, but the nature of the interaction is such that physics cannot investigate it because it is a metaphysical interaction rather than a physical one.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So it is agreed then, that the definition of materialism that is being discussed here is:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that the definition of materialism popular discussed in philosophical journals, being:


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



Is not being addressed?

As I have argued, materialism must involve more than this. It must have the additional condition that the ontological character of the empirical realm is not mental.

 

[hammegk]

Then how is this "mental realm" any different from the "physical realm"?

No one has proven conscoiusness exists in any meaningful way either.

Try this. *I* think. Is that physical or mental? THAT is the question.

 

[Guest]

Robot boy :

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?

I just told you that the physical world is undeniably objective, provided we agree to reject solipsism. My argument is that the physical world is a subset of the mental world, rather than the other way around. We only exist in the mind of God, as Berkeley put it.

Then how is this "mental realm" any different from the "physical realm"?

It is the metaphysical environment which the physical realm exists within. It is the place where the information which the 'physical world' is really composed of resides. Think about things like Bells 'non-locality' and 'quantum entanglement'. These phenomena tell us that the Universe is non-local - that particles seperates by vast distances are somehow directly connected at a deeper level of reality. Materialists look at this evidence and just feel confused. "It is a mystery" said Stimpson J Cat. Well, not to me it isn't. If the physical world is composed of information residing in a 'metamind' then quantum entanglement and non-locality are standard fare. It is the materialists insistence on the self-existence of the physical world and their rejection of non-locality that causes them to be mystified [NB Bells theorem is mathematical FACT, and entanglement has been experimentally demonstrated - the materialists just scratch their heads]. You will find if you go deeper into this that the sort of metaphysical model I am describing provides answers to all sorts of other 'mysteries' as well.

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

I mean science has not explained why consciousness exists at all. Consciousness is just 'tacked on' to the physical world, as II puts it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has proven conscoiusness exists in any meaningful way either.

Me Tarzan. You Zombie.

 

[Interesting Ian]

As for materialism being the working conclusion for consciousness, I will insist. While we do not quite understand how consciousness emerges in what is essentially a powerfull computer, all evidence points to this. This evidence has already been discussed in various contexts on this board, but we might sum up:

1) If the brain is disabled, temporarily or permanently, consciousness disappears, respectively temporarily or permanently.

2) If brain function is chemically interfered with, consciousness functions erratically.

3) Interference with brain function, be it from chemicals, age, trauma, or disease may radically alter personality.

Non-mateiralists need not deny that brain states effect mental states whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

But this does not at all entail that given particular physical states consciousness is logically entailed. Perhaps consciousness only naturally arises from physical processes. In other words perhaps epiphenomenalism is correct, in other words consciousness is to the brain as, roughly, a shadow is to a body casting that shadow.

Or one could argue that the brain isn't the source of consciousness, but merely acts as a "filter". The brain has a subduing effect on consciousness, and when it is not functioning 100% it may have an even greater subduing effect. This subduing effect ensures that we are not constantly experiencing other realities, but ensures that we experience just this reality so we can operate proficiently whilst subsisting in this empirical reality.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Robot boy :



I just told you that the physical world is undeniably objective, provided we agree to reject solipsism. My argument is that the physical world is a subset of the mental world, rather than the other way around. We only exist in the mind of God, as Berkeley put it.

Why do you feel the need to reply to an old post with "I just told you"? Are you feeling insecure?

How is anything made any different in the materialism I have put forward by this dualism? We still appear to be subject to the laws of physics. I am not talking about the physicalism that has been the subject of discussion in the past, I am talking about the materialism I put forward.

(Things that exist can be percieved. If they cannot be percieved then they do not exist)

It is the metaphysical environment which the physical realm exists within. It is the place where the information which the 'physical world' is really composed of resides. Think about things like Bells 'non-locality' and 'quantum entanglement'. These phenomena tell us that the Universe is non-local - that particles seperates by vast distances are somehow directly connected at a deeper level of reality. Materialists look at this evidence and just feel confused. "It is a mystery" said Stimpson J Cat. Well, not to me it isn't. If the physical world is composed of information residing in a 'metamind' then quantum entanglement and non-locality are standard fare. It is the materialists insistence on the self-existence of the physical world and their rejection of non-locality that causes them to be mystified [NB Bells theorem is mathematical FACT, and entanglement has been experimentally demonstrated - the materialists just scratch their heads]. You will find if you go deeper into this that the sort of metaphysical model I am describing provides answers to all sorts of other 'mysteries' as well.



Me Tarzan. You Zombie.

These constant insults really make you look secure.
I'm only vaguely familiar with this non-locality but still, it has nothing to do with materialism! It is, however, anecdotal evidence of a subjective reality.

This can be interesting. I would like to hear what you have to say. Is it possible that we can have this discussion civily? I apoligize whole-heartedly for any insults I passed onto you earlier. I will not do so again.

What else is there to suggest this subjective reality, and what would you propose this means?

 

[Guest]

Rusty

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

Yep, but every time you claim consciousness arises from the brain you are depending on materialistic assumptions rather than scientific evidence.

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

Can't it?

Perhaps you just don't like some of the answers.

You still do not understand what materialism is.

I wondered how long it would be till that accusation turned up.....

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.

Actually I am talking about both, and their relationship.

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

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.

The physical world behaves objectively.

And I'm not really a Kantian, as I said before. I just like to bring up Kant because he is a good place to start from. My own metaphysics are closer to those of Schopenhauer with a seasoning of idealistic Hegelian dialectic. The deeper understanding is that materialism and idealism are inter-related like Yin and Yang - they are both half-truths. But how can I expect a dumb materialist to understand this?

 

[Interesting Ian]

If non-physical existents have a location shouldn't they be defined as physical? Thus the Universe cannot contain non-physical existents. Thus your definition of the Universe simply presupposes the correctness of materialism. Given that it is logically possible for materialism to be false this would be an inadvisable definition of the Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't define the universe,

You supplied a definition of the Universe. Are you claiming you disagree with the definition you quoted? In that case why did you quote it?

I put a clause on the definition of the universe.

Yes, basically the clause being that reality is wholly material. How do you justify this position?

This is one of the 'weaker' points of the argument but you gave an invalid argument.

What is wrong with my argument?? Details please. Otherwise I might suspect you're talking out of your a*se.

The clause put on the definition of the universe says that it has to be such that it contains everything that exists.

In other words, as I have explained, it presupposes the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.

It says nothing about this "physicalness". So if something is "non-physical" and exists then it still exists, and that is what we care about.

But if a non-physical thing has a location why isn't it simply deemed to be physical?

 

[Interesting Ian]

The subjective perception vs. objective reality argument is rather boring and the only people who seem to argue (really argue) the subjective perception side are the heavy drug-using population like my idiot brother. [/B]

What's wrong with taking drugs? Not that I do so apart from drinking alcohol. Just curious.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But just to let you know, we assume that the world is an objective reality that we percieve (not a subjective perception that we create) because it is the most effective belief as proven by science. [/B]

It is very clear that we do create objective reality to a very great extent. Just consider optical illusions. Elementary psychology my boy. All our perceptions are moulded by an implicit, perhaps subconscious, theory about the world. We cannot perceive the world from an atheoretical context.

Edited to add: Perhaps I should have said "Elementary psychology my robot boy" LOL

 

[hammegk]

But if a non-physical thing has a location why isn't it simply deemed to be physical?

The restatement of why dualism is tough to defend.

So again, the questions are:

Matter makes consciousness,

or

Consciousness makes matter.

followed by *I* think, the single indisputable data point

 

[Guest]

Rusty:

I am not talking about the physicalism that has been the subject of discussion in the past, I am talking about the materialism I put forward.

(Things that exist can be percieved. If they cannot be percieved then they do not exist)

Well, it isn't really materialism.....it is generic monism.

These constant insults really make you look secure.

I'm sorry Rusty. 18 months and 3000 posts on this board have led me to treat a certain brand of naive materialism with disdain. It is eady to forget newbies haven't been round this merry-go-round before.

I'm only vaguely familiar with this non-locality but still, it has nothing to do with materialism! It is, however, anecdotal evidence of a subjective reality.

This can be interesting. I would like to hear what you have to say. Is it possible that we can have this discussion civily? I apoligize whole-heartedly for any insults I passed onto you earlier. I will not do so again.

OK. I'll try not to insult you. I'm only doing it jokingly though.....

as for non-locality....

John Bell mathematically proved that all the seperate bits of the Universe are in fact directly connected together. Alain Aspect then proved this experimentally by 'entangling' two particles and then demonstrating that measuring the state of one of them in one place instantly affected the state of the other, no matter how far away it was. These faster-than-light connections have no local materialistic explanation which doesn't defy relativity.

Consciousness and Modern Science:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/con-sci.htm

What else is there to suggest this subjective reality, and what would you propose this means?

In addition to non-locality, and entanglement, and the Hard Problem of consciousness?

Well....there's also the nature of time, the problem of apparent engineering of physical constants in the cosmos, the schroedingers cat paradox, the ontological status of mathematical objects and the relevance of Steven Wolframs contraversial book last year which claimed everything in the physical world could be explained in terms of simple algorithms.....

Did you check this out :

http://www.mythical.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000122

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Materialism

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


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:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is nonsensical to define a substance as empirical

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I did not say that sentence! I most certainly wouldn't define materialism that way. That's your definition of materialism, not mine!

Oh yes, and you got your response a*seside first.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

The boy robot said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you see yourself in the mirror does your head explode?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh?? WTF are you talking about?? If you believe that perceivers can be reduced to that which is perceived, then explain how!

What happens when I percieve myself?

You don't perceive yourself.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps I can throw some more light on this....

What we are really discussing here, to borrow a term from computing, is how do you bootstrap Reality?.

This isn't just cosmology or particle physics - it is a deeply philosophical question - the ultimate question, or at least part of it. And ontology and the nature of time figure as part of the answer. Both naive materialism and naive theism suffer from the same problem. They both start with "In the beginning...."

In the Beginning there was God, and he created the physical world.....
In the Beginning there was a Big Bang.......

Unfortunately both of these myths involve a metaphysical assumption about the absoluteness of the passage of time. If we want to figure out how this physical Reality actually came into existence we may have to be a bit smarter. My suggestion is that it didn't really happen either of these ways, and that the problem is that just like we think of the material world as the environment which gave rise to our experiences, we also like to think of linear time as being similarly fixed. However, this conception of time is also dependent on materialistic metaphysics. From the point of view of idealism it is just always NOW, always has been, and always will be. Now I ask again....how do you bootstrap Reality?