My argument against materialism

[benjayk]

My argument against materialism (=matter is all that primarily exists, everything else are configurations thereof) is really simple:

1. All empirical observations are dependent upon consciousness.

2. Materialism claims that there is something independent of consciousness (matter).

3. Empiricial evidence of something independent of consciousness needs to be independent of consciousness.

4. Because of 1. there can be no such evidence.

5. Therefore: Materialism can never have empirical support.

6. A position that can never have empirical support is worthless / false.

So instead of materialism, idealism (=consciousness is the fundamental reality) seems to be more sensible. Because all observations (which are the basis of all science) rely on consciousness, it seems logical to assume it is fundamental to the knowable world. Of course if we weaken the definition of materialism enough, so that consciousness and matter are co-dependent, or matter is fundamentally equal to consciousness, materialism and idealism are really the same. But I don’t think most materialists would take this position (if you do, I don't object to your form of materialism).

We also could conclude that we don’t (or cannot) know what the basis of reality is.

Most probably this argument is not new, but still many people (especially here) believe in materialism. So what do you think is wrong with this argument? Or if you don't think something is wrong with it, what do you think someone could find wrong with?

 

[Mister Agenda]

6. Does not follow from anything that precedes it, and if true, also applies to dualism.

We cannot prove that anything we 'know' about reality is 'really real'. Either you take your perceptions as being some approximation of something that exists beyond own consciousness as an axiom and go from there; or do things like spend your time trying to discredit empiricism for not being empirical enough.

And it's not that I believe in materialism. It's that I don't know of any evidence for dualism that is sufficent to convince me.

 

[BNRT]

2. Materialism claims that there is something independent of consciousness (matter).

Nope. Consciousness is dependent on matter. There never is unembodied consciousness.

Also: while observations may be dependent on consciousness, the things that we observe may not be dependent on consciousness.

ETA: This argument is indeed not new. Immanuel Kant made a similar argument, although much more refined.

 

[Dinwar]

To sum up the argument: "Things as they are are not things as we percieve them, because we percieve them."

Also, this argument implies that the universe did not exist until conciousness arose, which leads to a myriad of questions. How advanced a conciousness does it have to be? What about all those things that appear to have existed prior to conciousness? What about things which happen where no one can observe them, but which have observational repricusions? HOW does conciousness creat our reality? How does conciousness work (materialism has an answer, or at least a hypothesis; idealism has nothing, and generally treats conciousness as something without any definite attributes)?

Also, your third argument is illogical, and completely unsupported. Evidence doesn't have to be completely isolated from conciousness; it merely has to be objective. Objective data can include biases, so long as the biases are acknowledged and properly dealt with.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

5. Therefore: Materialism nothing can never have empirical support.

I shortened it down for you a bit by getting rid of all the unneeded parts of the argument. Only it's not an argument against materialism, it's an argument against everything.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course this argument also ignores the fact that non-conscious entities can make empirical observations.

 

[Luzz]

I am not materialist but your arguments are quite weak.
So, if no conscious being exists to observe the universe, the universe does not exist?

 

[Irony]

1. All empirical observations are dependent upon consciousness.

False. Machines can make observations.

2. Materialism claims that there is something independent of consciousness (matter).

False. Materialism claims that consciousness is dependent upon matter (and energy).

3. Empiricial evidence of something independent of consciousness needs to be independent of consciousness.

Unproven. You need to prove that consciousness prevents observation of non-consciousness. You can't simply state it.

4. Because of 1. there can be no such evidence.

1 is false.

5. Therefore: Materialism can never have empirical support.

All statements above are false, making this one unsound.

6. A position that can never have empirical support is worthless / false.

Just plain wrong. Even if all above statements were true, this would still not follow.

 

[IMST]

If you want to argue for solipsism, you're welcome to, but you can't make the other brains in jars care.

 

[Irony]

If you want to argue for solipsism, you're welcome to, but you can't make the other brains in jars care.

While, to my knowledge, solipsism itself can't be disproved. It is trivially easy to prove that all solipsists are wrong with the following proof.

1. I am not a solipsist.

 

[The Norseman]

While, to my knowledge, solipsism itself can't be disproved. It is trivially easy to prove that all solipsists are wrong with the following proof.

1. I am not a solipsist.

Can you elaborate for me, please?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One of the things you're missing, OP, is that while our perceptions are indeed unreliable, the whole point of science is that the methodology is repeatable and falsifiable. Any accepted theory isn't going to be relying on one person's perceptions, but will have many, many, many sets of empirical data collected by many, many different people and checked by an even larger number of people. And, in principle, they can be tested by anyone, although in practice the number of people who can test them is often limited by resources and education.

That's how you test the material universe with a flawed consciousness. It works, too. Look at us typing messages to each other on computers which could be thousands of miles apart.

As far as the more general questions of philosophy raised in the thread go, I'm not sure that the philosophies being described have to be mutually exclusive. I would count myself as both a materialist and a solipsist. I think that solipsism is something that you have to concede. While all the evidence I have thus far acquired in my life points very, very strongly towards the world outside my head being real, I must concede the possibility, however slight, that the data I have acquired thus far is wrong. It's not a useful thing to consider if you want to interact with the world, and I'd count it as a possibility on the same level as a scientist can only really say that gravity has always worked up until now and can't say with absolute 100% certainty that gravity will still work tomorrow (or, to put it another way, the way that Richard Dawkins, when asked, said that as a scientist he can't ever say that God doesn't exist as a certainty, he can only say that the probability of God existing is so minute as to not be worth considering), but I think that you logically have to concede that incredibly slight possibility.

Doesn't mean I'm not a materialist, too. Given the data that I have thus far been given in my existence materialism seems to be the only position supported by both the data and logic. And, unlike solipsism, materialism is a useful philosophy when it comes to dealing with the world.

 

[tsig]

While, to my knowledge, solipsism itself can't be disproved. It is trivially easy to prove that all solipsists are wrong with the following proof.

1. I am not a solipsist.

No True solipsist would say that.

 

[Malerin]

1. All empirical observations are dependent upon consciousness.

False. Machines can make observations.

2. Materialism claims that there is something independent of consciousness (matter).

False. Materialism claims that consciousness is dependent upon matter (and energy).

Reread (2).

 

[Irony]

Can you elaborate for me, please?

From my perspective, if solipsism is true then only I exist. Since all others are merely figments of my imagination, then the solipsists among them are wrong about being the solipsist.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

While, to my knowledge, solipsism itself can't be disproved. It is trivially easy to prove that all solipsists are wrong with the following proof.

1. I am not a solipsist.

Have you lost your mind???

 

[Dinwar]

Reread (2).

Yeah, that's about the only true thing in this.

I think that solipsism is something that you have to concede. While all the evidence I have thus far acquired in my life points very, very strongly towards the world outside my head being real, I must concede the possibility, however slight, that the data I have acquired thus far is wrong.

No. There's an easy way out of it: Establish standards for acceptance of concepts, and stick with them. What this argument amounts to is "Since we are not omnicient, we know nothing". Or, put another way, solipsism amounts to defining knowledge as 100% certainty, and defines 100% certainty as impossible; a circular argument. Define knowledge as 95% certainty and the circularity vanishes, along with the argument in favor of solipsism.

There's also Strong Inferrence. If my experiment can only have 2 results, and each result excludes one of my 2 working hypotheses, and my working hypotheses cover the entire range of the possible, I can conclude, after running the experiment, that one is correct and the other is incorrect. Because I have the data to demonstrate it, it burden is on the shoulders of the people whinning "But you don't KNOW it!!!"

 

[benjayk]

Regarding the claim that observations are not dependent on consciousness:
How can an observation of a non-conscious entity be known? Only by a conscious entity perceiving the - for example - measurement device. So even though machines/instruments make observations in some sense (which i did not dispute), the observation still ultimately depends on consciousness.

Some have stated that 2. is wrong because materialism claims that consciousness is dependent upon matter. But why does this invalidate that materialism claims that there is something independent of consciousness? I think both are true.

My explanation of why I think 3. is valid:
In order to show there is something independent of consciousness we can't use a procedure that is dependent on consciousness, because in this case we have no reason to believe that what we thought of as independent of consciousness is in fact independent of consciousness.
How could we ever claim that something is independent of consciousness when we in fact used consciousness to arrive at that conclusion? It's like saying that we can show that a mathematical statement is true independent of mathematics by using mathematics.

I did not mean to imply that 6. follows from the statements above it, I shouldn't have written it this way.

@IMST: I'm not a solipsist. Just because I think consciousness is fundamental, this does not have to mean that there can't be different content of consciousness / different personalities.

@Dinwar: I agree that there are many difficult questions arising from threating consciousness as fundamental, but if the argument is sound, this does not matter regarding the truth of the statement. And materialism leads to very difficult questions, too. For example: Why is there subjective experience at all?

 

[Irony]

Reread (2).

Nope, I read it correctly. "Independent of" doesn't mean "can exist without". To say matter is independent of the mind means it can't be affected by it. If some matter is part of a mind then you are saying that matter can't be affected by itself.

 

[benjayk]

Okay, then read it as "*some* matter is independent of the mind". If you deny this, too, you effectively stated that mind permeates the whole universe (even if indirectly) which would mean the whole universe is fundamentally dependent upon consciousness.