Materialism

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Re: Re: Materialism

Stare deeply into Pandoras' box......

The problem is known as the mind-body problem and it is very well described here :

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/mind.htm

NB : Most materialists encountering this paper misunderstand statement 5 :



Just to avoid that discussion, I should point out that statement 5 is about linguistics, and is a natural consequence of a linguistic dualism which really does exist. All five of the above theses can be succesfully defended as true.

The solution to the mind-body problem that works is Berkeleys solution, however this is generally dismissed as 'ludicrous', mainly because it isn't properly understood:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/az98.htm

My own take on the solution, posted on another site about a year ago :

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


The problem I have found is that the materialists will defend their belief system as fanatically as any Christian. They are not interested in the solution. They are interested in trying to demonstrate the problem doesn't exist. But the problem does exist, which is why it has been argued about continuously for 400 years.

I've read as far as the second post but don't care to read the replies, as I doubt you would consider them anyway.

Materialism:

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

Premise:
1) The universe contains all things that exist
1, 1) All things that exist are contained in the universe.

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

1, 2) All things that exist can be percieved or reduced to something that can be percieved.

OR:

If 'it' can not be percieved or reduced to something that can be percieved then 'it' does not exist.


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".

Those are UE's claims.

Materialism cannot be proven false, because to prove that something exists that we cannot percieve is to prove that we can reduce it to something that can be percieved.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

The physical Universe. We are currently discussing the relationship between consciousness and matter. Which is more 'real'?

The univerise is defined such that all things that exist are contained in the universe.

 

[Guest]

Rusty :

Premise:
1) The universe contains all things that exist
1, 1) All things that exist are contained in the universe.

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

1, 2) All things that exist can be percieved or reduced to something that can be percieved.

OR:

If 'it' can not be percieved or reduced to something that can be percieved then 'it' does not exist.


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".

Erm....this will help nobody understand anything, quickly or otherwise. Materialism, BY DEFINITION, is a claim that all things that exist are physical. That isn't 'My claim'. That is precisely what materialism is.

As for 'mentalness', materialism doesn't really claim anything at all, apart from the implied claim that the mental realm "is really" physical, even though this is counter-intuitive and leads to logical problems.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty :



Erm....this will help nobody understand anything, quickly or otherwise. Materialism, BY DEFINITION, is a claim that all things that exist are physical. That isn't 'My claim'. That is precisely what materialism is.

As for 'mentalness', materialism doesn't really claim anything at all, apart from the implied claim that the mental realm "is really" physical, even though this is counter-intuitive and leads to logical problems.

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

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.

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.


Obviously, this premise simply defines physical as "all things that exist", but is not neccessarily a part of materialism.

It still remains valid.

 

[Guest]

Rusty :

No where does materialism claim that all things that exist somehow posses the trait of "physicalness"

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

http://www.skepdic.com/materialism.html

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.

Sounds pretty much like my definition, Rusty, and bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to your own.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me whatsover.

What are you talking about?

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

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

Just to let you know, I believe that materialism is a valid argument. I also believe it is a false argument. So we probably do agree on the second point.

I'm not sure where that "physicalism" or physical materialism or whatever we shall call it came from. I am mostly interested in the free will debate, which is where I came into contact with materialism. Metaphysics are not my thing.

I certainly can't see how "physicalism" is invalid, though.

1) There is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material.

It certainly follows from the single premise that the premise is the conclusion eh?

What is the problem you have with this?

 

[Guest]

Just to let you know, I believe that materialism is a valid argument. I also believe it is a false argument. So we probably do agree on the second point.

Erm...."materialism" isn't an "argument", it is an ontological/metaphysical claim regarding the nature of reality.

I'm not sure where that "physicalism" or physical materialism or whatever we shall call it came from. I am mostly interested in the free will debate, which is where I came into contact with materialism. Metaphysics are not my thing.

You surprise me.

I certainly can't see how "physicalism" is invalid, though.

1) There is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material.

It certainly follows from the single premise that the premise is the conclusion eh?

What is the problem you have with this?

The problem is that the materialists around here don't have any better argument than (and I have Win to thank for this characterisation) :

"Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain under a materialistic metaphysic, but materialism must be true, so consciousness must be physical."

It is usually accompanied by claims (reasonable claims) that dualism also suffers from serious problems. Idealism is usually just dismissed or more often completely ignored.

When the materialist really has his back against the wall, the (fallacious) argument of last resort is that science depends materialism, and if materialism is demonstrated to be false then the sky will fall in on science.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps I should explain better....

Materialism works very well as a model of the physical Universe. It has been proven as the only metaphysical model to be effective. The problems all arise when we start discussing the relationship between the physical Universe and the subjective realm of the mind. 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. This is resisted - there is a tendency to insist that these are scientific claims, or that there is scientific evidence to support the claim. This is quite simply wrong. 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. 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.

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". Most materialists don't seem to have taken this properly into account. If it is taken into account it becomes clear that the mathematical model we know as the laws of physics is really a model of the behaviour of our subjective experiences of the physical world, and the assumption that this physical world self-exists is an additional, metaphysical claim, and a claim which is quite difficult to support. There are various obstacles preventing the materialist from overcoming his belief in the primacy of this "material world". 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.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

"Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain under a materialistic metaphysic, but materialism must be true, so consciousness must be physical."

Much more polite than the strawmen of certain, presently absent, friends, but still a strawman. The materialist standpoint is: All we have observational evidence for is materialism. So far, all observations support that consciousness is totally linked to physical brain function, so our working assumption is that consciousness is a physical function.

Materialistic metaphysics is an oxymoron.

It is usually accompanied by claims (reasonable claims) that dualism also suffers from serious problems. Idealism is usually just dismissed or more often completely ignored.

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).

When the materialist really has his back against the wall, the (fallacious) argument of last resort is that science depends materialism, and if materialism is demonstrated to be false then the sky will fall in on science.

A slightly less polite strawman. First of all, it is irrelevant, since materialism has not been proved to be false. Secondly, only idealism will make the sky fall in on science, while dualism is logically possible. Finally, science does not depend on materialism; it is the other way around: Materialism is the emergent conclusion from science.

Hans

 

[Guest]

Hans

Materialism is the emergent conclusion from science.

How did you figure that one out?

This is exactly what I mean. Materialism is a working assumption which makes possible the study of the physical world. The claim that materialism is an emergent scientific conclusion regarding the explanation of consciousness is total nonsense.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

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

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:

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

Is not being addressed?

 

[Guest]

Rusty :

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

Is not being addressed?

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.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans



How did you figure that one out?

This is exactly what I mean. Materialism is a working assumption which makes possible the study of the physical world. The claim that materialism is an emergent scientific conclusion regarding the explanation of consciousness is total nonsense.

Mmmm, I dont quite get the meaning of that, but, I'll try:

How did I figure it out: Well, science shows us an observable universe. Materialism is based on this and it makes the prediction that all things are observable within the rules found by science. So far, this prediction has held.

- and for Rusty: Yes, the working assumption for materialism is that all that exists is observable.

Back to UcE: I did specifically use the term "working assumption" with regard to consciousness, but I do not see any important distinction, in scientific work, between "working assumption" and conclusion". Or, to put it in another way: One project's conclusion is another project's working assumption.

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.

Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

Idealism that is indistinguishable from materalism is pointless. Idealism that can be distinguished from materialism is false (as Randi's million demonstrates).

Materialism that is indistinguishable from idealism is pointless. Materialism that can be distinguished from idealism is false (as Randi's million demonstrates).

 

[Guest]

Hans

Mmmm, I dont quite get the meaning of that, but, I'll try:

How did I figure it out: Well, science shows us an observable universe.

BANG!

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...

Materialism is based on this.....

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.

....and it makes the prediction that all things are observable within the rules found by science. So far, this prediction has held.

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.

Back to UcE: I did specifically use the term "working assumption" with regard to consciousness, but I do not see any important distinction, in scientific work, between "working assumption" and conclusion".

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.

Or, to put it in another way: One project's conclusion is another project's working assumption.

Specify please. Which 'project'?

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.

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. You can 'insist' on whatever you like. 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.

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.

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.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The physical Universe. We are currently discussing the relationship between consciousness and matter. Which is more 'real'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The univerise is defined such that all things that exist are contained in the universe.

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.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

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, I put a clause on the definition of the universe. This is one of the 'weaker' points of the argument but you gave an invalid argument.

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

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Hans



BANG!

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...



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.



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.





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.



Specify please. Which 'project'?



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. You can 'insist' on whatever you like. 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.



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.

You seem to be stuck on the subjective perception vs. objective reality argument.

We don't know anything. We suspect that the universe is a certain way because we see it doing the same things over and over and other people verify this.

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. I'm now going to remove myself from this argument due to strong emotions regarding it.

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.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Materialism

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".

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.

 

[Guest]

Robot boy :

You seem to be stuck on the subjective perception vs. objective
reality argument.

It is neccesary to ram it down the materialist throat until he finally acknowledges its existence.

Personally, I can think of far more interesting things to talk about.

We don't know anything. We suspect that the universe is a certain way because we see it doing the same things over and over and other people verify this.

Yep - so there is a shared objective noumenon ("world as it really is"). Whether it self-exists or is mind-dependent is not known.

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...

Maybe that is because they have been forced to confront it in a way that others have not.

....like my idiot brother. I'm now going to remove myself from this argument due to strong emotions regarding it.

Fair enough. Maybe your idiot brother knows something you don't.

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.

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.