Materialism

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Now that I understand what the argument is, and understand that the materialism I have read about (in relation to free will and the self) is different from the materialism you are speaking of. I find no argument to put forth.

I suppose I could continue claiming that your argument doesn't have anything to do with materialism, but we wouldn't be talking about the same thing.

Thank you for the links.

Now to go home and take care of the wife.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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?

I am utterly confused by what you mean by "objective". Could you in very clear terms explain what you mean by both the hypothesis that the world exists objectively, and the hypothesis that the world exists subjectively? Is a consensus of subjectivity objective? Thanks.

BTW where do you come from? How long have you been studying English?

 

[Guest]

All I can say is that according to the skeptics dictionary, my definition of materialism is the correct one. Your definition isn't materialism - it is ontological monism. Where did it come from?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans :

(I said the universe seems perfectly able to function without me observing it)

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

I think not. Obviously, most of the universe functions perfectly well without being observed. Of course you may claim that God is observing, but then don't appeal to Heisenberg and Schroedinger.

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.

Well, but that will be a suggestion based entirely in faith. And an unparsimonious suggestion, since it does not cast light on any of the unanswered questions. It merely adds a new "mysterious force".

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

Why consciousness exists? Consciousness is one terrific survival parameter. The why is simple Darwinism. HOW is the question. We do not understand how a large biological computer can be conscious. On the other hand we have no indication that this should not be the case; there is no evidence against consciousness being a property of the brain.

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

Oh, my familiarity with Kant did cover that. And?

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....)

And they may well be that. The reason we talk about correlation is that we are still recearching this. And of course the mind does not equal the brain; the mind is a product of the brain. The brain has other products, and a brain can exist without a consciousness (here using mind and consciousness interchangeably, which is perhaps not quite appropriate).

Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

I do indeed know what an argument is. It is equally clear that you don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Trust me when I say that you are sadly deluded if you think that I could learn from a moron like you.

You are the second person to be placed on my ignore list.

Good day,

My god you didn't last long did you? Another materialist felled by Interesting Ian's trusty sword!

 

[Interesting Ian]

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



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




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.




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. [/B]

You really are a complete moron aren't you? Why don't you ever try to define anything? What does it mean to say reality is objective or subjective?? What does "SUBJECTIVE EXISTENCE" mean?

 

[Interesting Ian]

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)



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?

What the hell does this subjective reality mean???

No-ones even proposing the existence of a "subjective reality"!

Hey, you're a waste of space!

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

All I can say is that according to the skeptics dictionary, my definition of materialism is the correct one. Your definition isn't materialism - it is ontological monism. Where did it come from?

I've got to get away from this forum, it's like an addiction or something . And I've only been posting for two days!

My definition came from several papers I read several years ago. I could dig them up but I've got to get back to so-called "real life".

Out of curiousity what is the definition of 'physical' that the materialist is using?

Interesting Ian, I blocked you at the begining of the last page. If you truly have something interesting to add and can get over your flaming tendancies please register a new username so I can see your posts.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian, I blocked you at the begining of the last page. If you truly have something interesting to add and can get over your flaming tendancies please register a new username so I can see your posts. [/B]

I don't care if you've blocked me or not. You're mistaken if you think that I'm going to let you get away with the crap you spew forth.

 

[Guest]

Hans :

Darwinism doesn't explain consciousness at all. Darwinism works perfectly well for zombies. Consciousness is entirely unneccesary.

Rusty :

I've got to get away from this forum, it's like an addiction or something.

Too late. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

 

[Interesting Ian]

UCE
Erm...I think Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schroedinger may disagree with you on this one.
HANS
I think not. Obviously, most of the universe functions perfectly well without being observed.

Yea, but the wave function won't have collapsed.

UCE
I mean science has not explained why consciousness exists at all. Consciousness is just 'tacked on' to the physical world, as II puts it.
HANS
Why consciousness exists? Consciousness is one terrific survival parameter. The why is simple Darwinism.

Darwinism cannot explain phenomenal consciousness. Or at least it could only do so if given certain physical facts, phenomenal consciousness is logically entailed. But if it is logically entailed you need to demonstrate that it is. Saying Darwinism explains why consciousness exists simply begs the question.

And of course the mind does not equal the brain; the mind is a product of the brain. The brain has other products, and a brain can exist without a consciousness (here using mind and consciousness interchangeably, which is perhaps not quite appropriate).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the crucial question here is whether you are maintaining that mind is logically necessitated once we have particular physical processes, or is it only a natural consequence? In other words does consciousness arise because of the particular way the world is (physical laws or whatever), or would it be that case that in all logically possible Universes that consciousness would arise given certain physical facts??

BTW you don't have me on ignore as well do you?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hans :

Darwinism doesn't explain consciousness at all. Darwinism works perfectly well for zombies. Consciousness is entirely unneccesary.

You beat me to it!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

Given that those five statements cannot all be true, under any logical framework, the above is clearly false.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I maintain that some sort of mentalism, linked to above, provides a solution which allows all 5 theses to be true at the same time.

Impossible. One of the five must give. Under Idealism, I would say that the one that gives is the assertion that people are made of atoms. Since a person's consciousness is clearly a part of their "make-up", and Idealism holds that consciousness is not "made of atoms", it fallows that Idealists do not agree that people are (entirely) made of atoms.

Indeed, Idealists would say that Reality itself is made of consciousness. They would therefore argue that people are not made of atoms, but rather of consciousness, and that only a part of the person (their physical body) is made up of that subset of consciousness that we call "atoms".

Well, that rather depends who asks the question. I can't be bothered to refute Stimpson claiming that "People are made of atoms" is wrong. It is a rather pathetic claim made by someone who should know better, but also knows there is no better way of refuting the proof. I realise some other people haven't been through this a hundred times already.

Excuse me? When did I claim that people are not made of atoms? The statement I reject is either number 5, or number 4 (depending on how you define "mental").


Ian,

From Website
5. No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stimp
As for number 5 being a natural consequence of linguistic dualism, that is only true if you are using a dualistic definition of "mental", in which case a materialist would argue that number 4 is false, and number 5 is thus meaningless.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 cannot be meaningless. It's meaning is perfectly self-evident and clear. Either mental facts can be derived from physical facts or they can't be. What conceivable meaning could there be in ascribing it as meaningless?

As I said, if number 4 is false, and mental states, as defined, do not exist, then number 5 is meaningless, because it is an assertion about something which does not exist. It would be like me saying that unicorns cannot fly. The meaning of statement 5 is only self-evident and clear if we agree that mental states exist. If the term "mental" is defined in a dualistic way, then we do not agree on that point.

As to the other points that have been made since my last post, since neither UCE or Ian are saying anything that I haven't already responded to a dozen times, I am not even going to bother. This is just the same old metaphysical speculation combined with strawman attacks against materialism that they have been spewing all over these boards for more than a year now.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Stimpson :

Impossible. One of the five must give.

Fascinating. What if I can demonstrate there is a system where all five can be true?

Under Idealism, I would say that the one that gives is the assertion that people are made of atoms. Since a person's consciousness is clearly a part of their "make-up", and Idealism holds that consciousness is not "made of atoms", it fallows that Idealists do not agree that people are (entirely) made of atoms.

Well this is just part of your continual failure to understand the model being put forward. Peoples bodies are made of atoms, because everything in the material world is made of atoms. What you are saying would only hold if we claim that the material world does not exist. I am not claiming this. I am claiming it exists subordinate to consciousness. Surely you understand the difference between these two claims?

Your response is a classic strawman. You have tried to refute a position I do not hold.

Indeed, Idealists would say that Reality itself is made of consciousness. They would therefore argue that people are not made of atoms, but rather of consciousness, and that only a part of the person (their physical body) is made up of that subset of consciousness that we call "atoms".

Again, this problem disappears when it is explained what is meant by "people". People are indeed made of atoms. It is the ontological status of the atoms themselves which alters under idealism. The entire physical world still exists, and still behaves as it does under materialism, it just doesn't self-exist all on its ownsome - it exists in the form of information in a higher Mental Reality. People are made of atoms.

This is just the same old metaphysical speculation combined with strawman attacks against materialism that they have been spewing all over these boards for more than a year now.

Well, you see, we aren't entirely convinced your refutations ever stood up to logical examination.

 

[hammegk]

One of the five must give. Under Idealism, I would say that the one that gives is the assertion that people are made of atoms. Since a person's consciousness is clearly a part of their "make-up", and Idealism holds that consciousness is not "made of atoms", it fallows that Idealists do not agree that people are (entirely) made of atoms.

Indeed, Idealists would say that Reality itself is made of consciousness. They would therefore argue that people are not made of atoms, but rather of consciousness, and that only a part of the person (their physical body) is made up of that subset of consciousness that we call "atoms".

Although an Idealist might argue that *me* -- the perceived/sensory bag-o-bones is indeed atoms, and the real question is "what are atoms?".

As one more closely examines via perception an "atom", there becomes less and less 'matter' and more and more 'nothing that could be called "material". Assuming dualism is nonsense -- which I do -- which monism is more certain? *I* of course think.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



As I said, if number 4 is false, and mental states, as defined, do not exist, then number 5 is meaningless, because it is an assertion about something which does not exist. It would be like me saying that unicorns cannot fly. The meaning of statement 5 is only self-evident and clear if we agree that mental states exist. If the term "mental" is defined in a dualistic way, then we do not agree on that point.

ok sorry about that. My error.

As to the other points that have been made since my last post, since neither UCE or Ian are saying anything that I haven't already responded to a dozen times, I am not even going to bother. This is just the same old metaphysical speculation combined with strawman attacks against materialism that they have been spewing all over these boards for more than a year now.

No need for you to respond Stimpy. After all no-one was addressing you! LOL BTW I'm pretty sure it's still less than a year for me.

 

[Q-Source]

Q
Can the mind arise from other thing besides the brain?

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

My question is: can an individual consciousness arise from something else besides the brain?

I know the materialistic answer, I want yours.

No. We should start by assuming nothing.

Don't you think it is impossible to understand something without a frame of reference. I am trying to think according to your assumptions.

Q
...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.

UCE
They do, but they must also remember that when they are examining reports of such events that materialism may not be true.

Is there any other reliable method that we should use instead?
I am serious, besides the scientific method, is there any other method that we could apply to understand those events.

Or maybe we all should do what Peter Lloyd does: rely on anecdotal evidence.

I really cannot accept that those events should remain "unexplained" just because you think that Science has nothing to do with them.

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.

Wasn't it you who was arguing that assumption is not the same as conclusion?

Materialists do not assume that those events are false. They conclude that they are false because the empirical evidence says so.

You keep repeating that materialists have predetermined conclusions, but your repetition does not make it true, Geoff.

Q-S

 

[Guest]

Q:

My question is: can an individual consciousness arise from something else besides the brain?

I know the materialistic answer, I want yours.

Consciousness doesn't 'arise' at all. Consciousness is everything that is. Everything which exists arises from consciousness.

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

No. We should start by assuming nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't you think it is impossible to understand something without a frame of reference. I am trying to think according to your assumptions.

I start from the observation that I am conscious, and that mathematical objects can exist requiring only Zero and logic. Neither of these things are assumptions. I can provide an entirely self-consistent model for metaphysics based on these observations, provided consciousness gives rise to matter rather than the other way around.

Is there any other reliable method that we should use instead?
I am serious, besides the scientific method, is there any other method that we could apply to understand those events.

Or maybe we all should do what Peter Lloyd does: rely on anecdotal evidence.

I really cannot accept that those events should remain "unexplained" just because you think that Science has nothing to do with them.

Well, it depends which events you mean. Anecdotal evidence is of use to a person who wishes to search for repeating patterns within that anecdotal evidence. Then you can look at both the patterns in the anecdotal evidence, and the metaphysical model, and try to make sense of them both.

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

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't it you who was arguing that assumption is not the same as conclusion?

Materialists do not assume that those events are false. They conclude that they are false because the empirical evidence says so.

Well, the people at PEAR disagree.

G

 

[Q-Source]

Q-Source
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.

UndercoverElephant
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.

Interact means to have an effect upon each other [from Oxford English Dictionary]

You just said that "The physical world behaves objectively." It means exactly that, no more no less.

However, in the next breath you claim that the mental realm can interfer or interact with the physical realm, i.e. paranormal events. How is it possible?
If this is the case, then it should not be a problem for any of you to prove that your "observations" force the cat to be dead or alive. Why can the mental realm just stay mental?, wouldn't it be the most logical conclusion?

Q-S

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: Materialism

1. For any system, every fact about the whole is a necessary consequence of the nature and relations of the parts.
Stare deeply into Pandoras' box......

This one generates deep ontological errors. Regardless of the system
there will be true facts that cannot be derived from the parts, likewise
there will also be false facts about the system that can not be proven
false by looking at the components. See: Gödel's Theorem.