Materialists......

Personally, I'll invoke Occam and reject MWI as crazy-talk.

Well, someone's misunderstood Occam's principle...

Martin Gardner said:
Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds, constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to which today's philosophy of science has fallen.

Have to disagree with him, here. The "creator" with a capital C is immensely -- dare I say INFINITELY -- complex. Also, there is the problem of explaining how one universe could have been formed by quantum fluctuation and NONE other have been. I don't necessarily favour many over one, but the latter raises a question that I'm not sure can be answered.
 
Well, perhaps it was worth the 43 page ramble after all then.

It would be true if the old definition had been REPLACED by a better one instead of leaving me in a limbo.

JustGeoff said:
Like I said.

Like you DIDN'T, you mean. Dodge noted.

Because it transcends the existence/non-existence dichotomy. It neither exists nor doesn't exist. You might try to say "It is existence", but that's no use either, unless you think "X is isness." makes sense.

It neither exists nor doesn't exist. It is both completely blue and completely red. It is both completely above point X and completely below it. All those statements are contradictory.


Then, here we have it. This entire thread is based on a mystic belief on your part. I think that says it all.
 
This is just like Interesting Ian--the insistance that materialists are close minded because they won't accepts the nebulous mystical unsupported quantum flapdoodle and all the implications therein. They truly believe that they have a "higher truth" that we are just too blind to see--(or maybe we're not taking enough hallucinogens)--they see hard headedness in others while utterly failing to notice it in themselves. (Their beliefs are "convictions"...materialist beliefs (supported by facts) are due to close-mindedness.--incredible.) Is there anything--evidence or "whatever" that would change their mind?--since they can't provide that for us due to the subjective and anecdotal nature of the "evidence", is there any proof other than "intuition" that could get them to consider the alternative....or are they too afraid of becoming "p-zombies"--the evil materialists. They speak of us fearing having our view shattered...as if we wouldn't welcome dualism, but aren't they really afraid of having their cherished but unlikely delusion dashed by reality?

I, for one, would love to have an immortal soul!!

Robin said:
there can be no definition of "matter" as long as there is still science to do.

I think my previous definition of materialism just got replaced. Thanks, Robin!
 
I am NOT just citing QM, saying its weird, and saying it therefore explains other weirdness. So stop giving me your thought-lite knee-jerk skeptic-speak. :mad:

Sorry, but I call foul :

JustGeoff said:
Belz... said:
By that, do you mean: "it is worthy of analysis just like any subject" or "it is worthy of analysis because it may give us real answers to real questions about reality that science can't provide" ?

Both.

No offense, but it sounds pretty close to me.
 
Geoff said:
And that is standard skeptic-speak rhetoric in place of an argument. It is a lie, trotted out with astonishing regularity by skeptics. Every time somebody offers QM as an example of anything at all that they might not want to believe it, they trot out this response, regular as clockwork. No thought is given as to whether or not is true or justified, it just spews forth from their mouths, with no actual thinking getting done.
Thinking about what? That QM might offer a nexus to the supernatural? Sure, it might (although then the thing won't be supernatural). So might general relativity, or string theory, or special kinds of trees. Meanwhile, QM is nothing but a god of the gaps argument.

I am NOT just citing QM, saying its weird, and saying it therefore explains other weirdness. So stop giving me your thought-lite knee-jerk skeptic-speak.
That's exactly what you're doing. You have not presented the mathematics of your neutral monism. Until you do so, neutral monism is piggybacked on certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. Nothing more.

There are certain specific questions to which it [neuroscience] makes no difference. The relationship between the three monisms is one of them.
Ah, well, that's a narrower claim that sounds more reasonable. Since I think the monisms are all equivalent, I might even agree with you.

How does materialism account for the evolution of the brain?

Answer to both questions: It doesn't.

Evolutionary theory accounts for the evolution of the brain. Materialism and neutral monism do not.
What? Okay then, how does neutral monism account for evolution in general? In particular, was it simply fortuitous that microtubules evolved so that the brain could interface to Being/Mind?

Physicalism accounts for evolution just fine, since there is no interface to Being/Mind that needed to evolve.

The only position that causes problems for evolutionary theory is the sort of outright subjective idealism that leads to things like creationism and gazerism i.e. rampant anti-realism that has lost the plot.
See above.

~~ Paul
 
Geoff said:
....does not answer the question I asked. I did not ask "are they all equal under Occam?". I asked how they were related to each other. Are they really all just equal, or is their relationship more complex than that?
They are equivalent, which means the same. Therefore there is no interrelationship between them. If you like to think of that as 1 = 1 = 1, then fine.

~~ Paul
 
The 100% denial of god and free will also absolutely denies teleology. Yet all that our perception yields seems anything but dis-ordered and accidental, beginning with the rules observed/obeyed.
 
Hammegk said:
The 100% denial of god and free will also absolutely denies teleology. Yet all that our perception yields seems anything but dis-ordered and accidental, beginning with the rules observed/obeyed
I don't know what free will has to do with teleology, but the lack of design or purpose in the universe does not rule out local order. There are other mechanisms that can lead to what we define as order (low entropy?).

~~ Paul
 
Well, someone's misunderstood Occam's principle...

Errr..how?

MWI claims that in order to escape the apparent paradoxes of QM we need to posit the existence of countless trillions of Universes splitting off from this one every millisecond. Alternatively, one can simply reject local realism and go back to there only be one Universe.

The article I posted claiming that MWI was counter to Occams razor was a PSICOP article.

Have to disagree with him, here. The "creator" with a capital C is immensely -- dare I say INFINITELY -- complex.

No. God is not complex unless you belong to one of the more bizarre branches of Christianity. God is the ultimate in simplicity.

Also, there is the problem of explaining how one universe could have been formed by quantum fluctuation and NONE other have been.

Why?

I don't necessarily favour many over one, but the latter raises a question that I'm not sure can be answered.

Maybe it can't be answered in any way you like. If you think MWI is attractive the that is up to you. As I said earlier, I spent a few months evangelising MWI myself. At the time, it seemed like the least unpalatable of a spread of unpalatable options.
 
It would be true if the old definition had been REPLACED by a better one instead of leaving me in a limbo.

It's better to be in limbo for a while than believing something incoherent. There is nothing wrong with asking questions for a while instead of thinking you already understand answers that aren't actually correct.

It neither exists nor doesn't exist. It is both completely blue and completely red. It is both completely above point X and completely below it. All those statements are contradictory.

Not true. There last two are contradictory, the first is not.

http://www.godweb.org/Tillich.htm

It is just this idea of religion which makes any understanding of religion impossible. If you start with the question whether God does or does not exist, you can never reach Him; and if you assert that He does exist, you can reach Him even less than if you assert that he does not exist. A God whose existence or nonexistence you can argue is a thing beside others within the universe of existing things.... It is regrettable that scientists believe that they have refuted religion when they rightly have shown that there is no evidence whatsoever for the assumption that such a being exists. Actually, they have not only not refuted religion, but they have done it a considerable service. They have forced it to reconsider and to restate the meaning of the tremendous word God. Unfortunately, many theologians make the same mistake. They begin their message with the assertion that there is a highest being called God, whose authoritative revelations they have received. They are more dangerous for religion than the so-called atheistic scientists. They take the first step on the road which inescapably leads to what is called atheism. Theologians who make of God a highest being who has given some people information about Himself, provoke inescapably the resistance of those who are told they must subject themselves to the authority of this information.

[Paul Tillich]
 
The usual random comment, or is this supposed to be true ?
Since you don't seem to be in 100% certain denial about anything, it makes no difference, unless you allow dualism to slip into your worldview. Even then the only problem you have is a position that cannot be defended logically.


Paul said:
There are other mechanisms that can lead to what we define as order (low entropy?).
Order exists whether "we" define it or not. Your random mechanisms coupled with entropy considerations are subject to the constraints of TLOP at minimum.

I continue to find it interesting that wannabe-materialists see no teleological aspects to 'what-is'. Hmmm, perhaps I should say I find that position odd and indefensible, too.
 
You have not presented the mathematics of your neutral monism.

Neither will anybody ever. I cannot prove neutral monism is true. All I can do is make a series of inductive arguments aimed at convincing people it is the most likely or the most coherent of the available options.

What? Okay then, how does neutral monism account for evolution in general?

It doesn't. Darwinism accounts for evolution.

In particular, was it simply fortuitous that microtubules evolved so that the brain could interface to Being/Mind?

I don't have an off-the-cuff answer to this question. Microtubules exist in various cells in the body anyway, not directly involved with consciousness. But evolution often makes new uses for old structures.

It is probably reasonable to assume that consciousness emerged slowly, only existing minimally in the lower vertebrates and only being fully present in humans and the more advanced mammals (or something along those lines).

I will try to give a more complete answer before the end of today. Right now I can think of two ways to answer the question and I'm not sure which is better.
 
They are equivalent, which means the same. Therefore there is no interrelationship between them. If you like to think of that as 1 = 1 = 1, then fine.

~~ Paul

Really? Honestly?

If you honestly believe that idealism, materialism and neutral monism have no relationship to each other, and are more like 1, 1 and 1 than 1, -1 and 0 then I have nothing more to say to you.

But then people defending materialism have a habit of defending statements which look absurd to everyone else.
 
Last edited:
LOL. I'd say we have no materialists or even dualists left. Where, oh where, is Win when we need him?

What we do have is a group of monists that want to sneak the attributes we reserve, you in neutral monism, me in a ~physical monism I call objective idealism, into the word 'physical'.
 
Paul,

There are two possible answers, as I said. I think I'll offer this one: We need some sort of quantum theory of evolution.

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall00/005041.htm

I have often hinted that I believe that evolutionary theory leaves the door open for mutations being non-random in certain cases. Specifically, the case I was refering to was the evolution of consciousness. From our POV this suggests that evolution was in some sense always heading towards the emergence of consciousness. The dice had to have been loaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_evolution_(alternative)

Geoff
 
Errr..how?

MWI claims that in order to escape the apparent paradoxes of QM we need to posit the existence of countless trillions of Universes splitting off from this one every millisecond. Alternatively, one can simply reject local realism and go back to there only be one Universe.

I wasn't talking about alternate timelines or whatnot. That seems to me like just a mathematical model rather than an actual reality. I was talking about OTHER universes with their own set of physical laws and all.

If ONE universe can spawn from the "singularity", then it's reasonable to assume that others will, as well.

No. God is not complex unless you belong to one of the more bizarre branches of Christianity. God is the ultimate in simplicity.

A beign who's infinite in knowledge, power, presence and intelligence is the ultimate in simplicity ? We're not talking about bizarre branches. We're talking mainstream Christianity.

God has attributes that simply cannot be described as complex. He has emotions, for one, and that's a biological component.
 
Since you don't seem to be in 100% certain denial about anything, it makes no difference, unless you allow dualism to slip into your worldview. Even then the only problem you have is a position that cannot be defended logically.


Hammy, just because someone's not 100% sure of something doesn't mean they don't believe it.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom