My argument against materialism

[laca]

Pixy, your hopeless attempts to sneak in metaphysical materialism through semantics is an aboslute delight to watch.

I sincerely do hope you realise what you're doing as all the mental gymnastics it would take to really convince yourself of this belief must require a lot of effort to sustain.

No matter how much you pretend otherwise the true nature of neumenal reality will still be an unknown - and both the non-conscious magic stuff theory and the consciousness theory will both still be candiates for that exact same unknown true nature of neumenal reality.

And, of course, consciousness will always be the better theory as it's just... well... much more parsimonious.

Why does that unsettle you? I mean, we're all accepting it's all just theory?

Is it the inconvenient fact (for you) that it's the better theory that annoys you?

Or, is the fact that it means atheism is actually a belief system that requires a greater committment of belief than theism that bugs you?

It must be so disheartening for you and the others in this group who share a view similar to yours to actually be able to see the glaring holes in your own arguments every time you hit the "submit reply" button and - at the exact same time - know that there's really nothing more you can do except hide behind weak semantic arguments.

If you find the above too rough, try to see the positive side of it - namely, that I'm quite convinced that you're not really so dim that you can't actually see for yourself how empty and utterly pointless your semantic arguments are.

~
HypnoPsi

Wow. The projection is strong in this one...

 

[Belz...]

Well... on wikipedia it reads:

"a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky."

Sure. Quality of conscious experience. In quanta. We're basically looking to express behaviour in its simplest form, no ? So it's not quite about quality.

 

[Belz...]

That's nothing more than handwaving.

Naturalism is correct; that is how the Universe behaves.

Materialism is reasonable, it's merely the assertion that the Universe is how it acts.

Idealism is just the addition of another fundamental reality underneath that for no reason whatsoever..

I am stealing this.

 

[Belz...]

Right. Again, idealism makes sense if you ignore the Universe. Since it's attempting to explain what the Universe is, this seems counter-productive.

Damit, Pixy. Stop giving me sig material.

 

[Belz...]

Materialism only deals with the physical world

There's a good reason for that: nothing outside the physical world has ever been observed. And that might have something to do with the fact that observation requires physical presence.

It is blind to aspects of reality which are not based on known processes in the physical world.

Yeah, we can't observe othere universe, either. So why bother speculating ?

It is also blind to any considerations of how we got here

No it doesn't. In fact it seeks to answer that question.

I am intrigued by this 'critical thinking', which has been mentioned. It appears to be a series of boxes designed to box in an argument and then invalidate it.

Only to the untrained eye. All possibilities are not equal. Critical thinking seeks to eliminate the nonsensical ones.

 

[CurtC]

What substance can you show that can't be reduced to massless particles in what we call a matter/antimatter reaction? Even something as simple as an electron/positron collision will result in their conversion into a couple of (massless) photons.

Photons are massless only when they're at rest.

Before we are born - before we are conceived - our bodies and brains don't exist, and we have no experiences. After we die, our bodies and brains rot away and no longer exist. What do you think happens?

Well, maybe to you! I like to think that things continue on. Like my old computer that died, then got crunched up and sent to the landfill. How can you say definitively that it's not still computing spreadsheets and surfing the Internet in some other realm?

 

[tsig]

So you would suggest it is all just sense data?

~
HypnoPsi

If you mean data gathered by our senses then yes.


How do you gather data other than from your senses?

 

[tsig]

I don't think we really know anything about consciousness. Obviously we can say, to a degree, that conscious self-awareness is what we have when we're not unconscious and that altering the brain alters conscious experience - but how do you know if the "information processing = consciousness" model is really true or if a damaged brain is more like a damaged radio or TV set?




Er...so? We create within our mental fields. Fine by me. I don't particularly want to see what everyone else is thinking hanging around their heads like thought bubbles. The question is whether or not we live within a universe that is itself the mental field of another, much more powerful, consciousness?

You write the above is if you somehow know the true nature of neumenal reality? How do you know neumenal reality is metaphysically/ontologically material?

As I see it all that we really know is that the world is real and regular like clockwork (i.e. it works naturally) and I've yet to see any good argument how we can define any metaphysical position at all as the correct one.




Yet you happily guess above that the universe is material rather than ideal.....?

~
HypnoPsi

Why is that the question? Do you have any evidence it's true? Sounds like one of those "Why is there air" questions.

 

[tsig]

Idealism names the only 'fundamental reality' that will ever exist for me, and for you.

How is this 'fundamental reality' different than plain, old, ordinary reality?

 

[tsig]

Are you accusing me of ever saying that "We do" or "Can know"? If so where? I would think I've been very clear in my statemet, that you quoted yourself "all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture and theory.





Hand waving.




Again, horse before cart.... and "appears". You have no idea if neural activity creates or is equivalent to consciousness or if, perhaps, consciousness just likes brains. All you really know about what you term a "physical substrate" is that it's something that seems to exist and work independently of your beliefs (realism).

And you seem genuinely confused by the statement "behind it all". Let me ask you: do you believe that reality is all just sense data that requires your existence for it's own existence? Since your post strongly suggests you wouldn't believe this, is it not therefore a given that your whole model of the world, your sense of things like debth, weight, colour, size, distance, etc., are all produced in your mind-brain as a result of it processing sensory input and that you don't actually experience any 'thing-in-itself'?

So, you see, the question I am asking is what's the best candidate theory to explain the true neumenal nature of things in themselves?

There are no additional entities here since we're asking about the nature of that neumenal entity which causes "things in themselves" to exist.

The idea that it's some unknown fancy magic powder stuff (i.e. metaphysical materialism) just doesn't cut it when compared to the alternative theory that there is another consciousness "behind it all" (since we all know intimately that consciousness exists and can indeed store, retrieve and create information).

~
HypnoPsi

Consciousness is a brain eating zombie?

 

[Third Eye Open]

How the moon get there? You can't explain that.

 

[tsig]

Wow. The projection is strong in this one...

Yeah, it's like he's standing in front of a mirror yelling and gesticulating and the louder he yells and the more he waves his hands the louder and more animated the guy in the mirror gets.

 

[AlBell]

How is this 'fundamental reality' different than plain, old, ordinary reality?

Unknown. We each have our 'fundamental reality', and how it maps to reality is the question being discussed.

 

[tsig]

Unknown. We each have our 'fundamental reality', and how it maps to reality is the question being discussed.

In my 'fundamental reality' if you drop a ball it falls to the ground. Is yours the same?

 

[HypnoPsi]

nothing outside the physical world has ever been observed.

....and all we can do is experience that outside physical world via our senses. We don't experience things in themselves.

Indeed, it would even be quite accurate to say that what we really consciously perceive is actually just our sensory signals rather than the "outside" world itself.

None of which, of course, denies that the outside world is real and exists.

But what justification can there ever be for assuming that the neumenal essence of reality is some non-conscious magic powder/power?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

You're assuming there is an ultimate nature.

So you would suggest it is all just sense data?

If you mean data gathered by our senses then yes.

Somehow I don't think we're on the same wavelength here....

Our senses must be perceiving something real, no?

How do you gather data other than from your senses?

I wouldn't imagine that we would. But is it not very clear that there is indeed a reality "out there" that we're sensing?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by AlBell
Unknown. We each have our 'fundamental reality', and how it maps to reality is the question being discussed.

In my 'fundamental reality' if you drop a ball it falls to the ground. Is yours the same?

You don't really understand what the topic of conversation is here, do you?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Wow. The projection is strong in this one...

The obtuseness in this one is stronger.

 

[tsig]

....and all we can do is experience that outside physical world via our senses. We don't experience things in themselves. Indeed, it would even be quite accurate to say that what we really consciously perceive is actually just our sensory signals rather than the "outside" world itself. None of which, of course, denies that the outside world is real and exists.

But what justification can there ever be for assuming that the neumenal essence of reality is some non-conscious magic powder/power?

~
HypnoPsi

Somehow I don't think we're on the same wavelength here....

Our senses must be perceiving something real, no?




I wouldn't imagine that we would. But is it not very clear that there is indeed a reality "out there" that we're sensing? ~HypnoPsi

First you say "what we really consciously perceive is actually just our sensory signals rather than the "outside" world itself" then "is it not very clear that there is indeed a reality "out there" that we're sensing?"


So does reality exist independent of our senses.

 

[AlBell]

In my 'fundamental reality' if you drop a ball it falls to the ground. Is yours the same?

That's been the case so far. Which of course answers one of the sillier non-sequiturs I've seen here.