My argument against materialism

[BNRT]

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.

Ah, I misunderstood. Did you mean to say something like: "materialism claims that things can exist without there being consciousness"?

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.

[...]

@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.

Actually, I think you are forced into a solipsistical position. If you can't prove matter exists independent of consciousness, because you used your consciousness to arrive at that prove, you also can't prove other consciousnesses exist, because you would prove that using only your own consciousness.

 

[Dinwar]

@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?

That's hardly difficult. The nature of our sensory instruments (most basically, our orgains, but the same holds true for everything else) necessitates subjective experiences. For example, our eyes can only see in the so-called "visible spectrum"--therefore we don't see ultraviolet or radio or infrared. Our view of objects is subject to the biases of our instruments--it's subjective. We can get around that by building other devices, with other biases.

As for subjective experiences absent sensory input (or more complex than the sensory input would indicate should happen, such as emotions), those are a bit more complicated. However, the brain is matter, and neurology is going a long way towards explaining many things in terms of biochemistry. I tentatively accept that my mind is the product of chemical reactions; nothing indicates otherwise (and it's tentatively because it doesn't meet my criteria for "knowledge").

Besides, as you stated, none of this matters so much as "What is demonstrable?" I've suffered quite badly from things I was unaware of at the time--minor wounds, illnesses, and the like. Unless one is willing to argue that our minds create things our minds are not aware of, conciousness cannot be the controling factor. We can also argue against it in terms of results. Those who accept matter, not conciousness, as the primary thing in the universe have been wildly successfull in terms of, well, pretty much everything--it's the fundamental idea behind science. Those who reject it? Not so much.

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.

So in order to observe something we have to not observe it.

 

[Sledge]

As I'm very lazy and never bothered doing the philosophy course, I'll just ask: isn't this a fancy rewording of "how do we know we aren't all brains in jars?" and "how do I know anyone else really exists?"

 

[Irony]

As I'm very lazy and never bothered doing the philosophy course, I'll just ask: isn't this a fancy rewording of "how do we know we aren't all brains in jars?" and "how do I know anyone else really exists?"

Yup.

 

[Sledge]

Just checkin'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This thread should be retitled "My argument against 100% belief in materialism".

Nothing in the argument presented rules out 99.99...9% belief in materialism, which is all a competent skeptic should have anyway. We might all be living in a vat or a computer simulation, there's just no evidence for it and it's not a very productive hypothesis.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

as i'm very lazy and never bothered doing the philosophy course, i'll just ask: Isn't this a fancy rewording of "how do we know we aren't all brains in jars?" and "how do i know anyone else really exists?"

ding ding ding

 

[tsig]

This thread should be retitled "My argument against 100% belief in materialism".

Nothing in the argument presented rules out 99.99...9% belief in materialism, which is all a competent skeptic should have anyway. We might all be living in a vat or a computer simulation, there's just no evidence for it and it's not a very productive hypothesis.

But you do consider it as a possibility?

 

[PixyMisa]

5. Therefore: Materialism can never have empirical support.

Materialism can never have empirical proof. Neither can idealism or dualism. On the other hand, solipsism is intrinsically useless, and materialism works.

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

You're still confusing support with proof.

So instead of materialism, idealism (=consciousness is the fundamental reality) seems to be more sensible.

No, that sort of idealism is either equivocation or untrue. Minds run on matter. This is just observation. What matter runs on in turn - if anything - is another question. Maybe down at the bottom it is consciousness - but if so, materialism is still true on the surface.

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.

Consciousness and matter aren't co-dependent. Consciousness is a physical process.

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

This is correct. We cannot know what the ultimate basis of reality is. We can only work with what we observe.

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?

The problem is that before making observations, all we have is solipsism, not idealism. Once we start making observations, materialism (or naturalism or physicalism) turns out to fit the facts. Certain forms of idealism also work, but not the form you describe.

 

[Malerin]

This thread should be retitled "My argument against 100% belief in materialism".

Nothing in the argument presented rules out 99.99...9% belief in materialism, which is all a competent skeptic should have anyway. We might all be living in a vat or a computer simulation, there's just no evidence for it and it's not a very productive hypothesis.

What is your evidence for 99.99...9% belief in materialism?

 

[NewtonTrino]

The OP is nonsense.

 

[Fnord]

Benjayk, you are just plain wrong - your data are flawed (that which you've presented, anyway), your reasoning fallacious, and your conclusions misguided.

Other than that, welcome aboard!

 

[Sledge]

The OP is nonsense.

The OP is needlessly verbose.

 

[Loss Leader]

So instead of materialism, idealism (=consciousness is the fundamental reality) seems to be more sensible.

So, you can't know whether something exists but you can know whether you exist to think about it? How do you know that the thought process you just went through exists? How do you know the entire memory wasn't planted in your mind fully formed? How do you know you even wrote the OP and didn't just transport in a moment ago with the false memory of having written it?

It seems to me that the fact that perception and reality are separate things does not lend much support to your particular version of reality.

 

[IMST]

@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.

If you're going to argue that our senses are too unreliable for repeatable experiments involving detecting equipment to be trusted, you're working up a solipsistic argument whether you like it or not. Feel free to waste your time with that line of arguments, but no one's going to go for it simply because it does us no good at all toward learning anything. We have to go on the assumption that our experiences are sufficiently accurate to communicate with each other and read the output of our measuring tools, or we end up unable to know anything about anything ever. And if we really can't know anything about anything ever, we may as well pretend we can because it makes not a bit of difference whether we do or not.

 

[TraneWreck]

Consciousness is necessary for observation?

How does a bumblebee decide to go to a flower instead of a rock?

 

[Lowpro]

If you're going to argue that our senses are too unreliable for repeatable experiments involving detecting equipment to be trusted, you're working up a solipsistic argument whether you like it or not. Feel free to waste your time with that line of arguments, but no one's going to go for it simply because it does us no good at all toward learning anything. We have to go on the assumption that our experiences are sufficiently accurate to communicate with each other and read the output of our measuring tools, or we end up unable to know anything about anything ever. And if we really can't know anything about anything ever, we may as well pretend we can because it makes not a bit of difference whether we do or not.

Copied and pasted to a notepad file for when I run into the (millions of) arguers of...what...nonmaterialism?

 

[gentlehorse]

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.

While this may be fundamentally true, that which is observed is independent of consciousness. If consciousness were removed from the equation, the massively complex quantum event we call The Universe would continue doing its thing. There just wouldn't be anybody around to marvel at the majesty and the mystery. Waste of a good universe if you ask me, but that's beside the point--

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

It's axiomatic, unless you want to enter the bankrupt realm of the solipsist, or to posit a form of idealism that is ultimately indistinguishable from materialism.

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

Again, the assumption that the mind-independent universe that seems to exist in a consistent, probabilistically predictable manner actually exists is axiomatic. It also works.

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

That depends on what you hold as axiomatic. If an idealistic model of the universe exists that allows us to better explain the universe and to make more accurate predictions, I've yet to see it.

5. Therefore: Materialism can never have empirical support.

Take a good look at the monitor in front of you. It's there because a materialistic model of the universe actually works. Is that evidence enough?

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

Bold mine--

I would say "meaningless", but I think we agree.

So instead of materialism, idealism (=consciousness is the fundamental reality) seems to be more sensible.

Only if it is indistinguishable from the materialistic model-- Or superior to it, for which there is no evidence--

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

Agreed.

Most probably this argument is not new, but still many people (especially here) believe in materialism.

I don't believe in materialism. It provides the best explanations for, and the most accurate predictions regarding, that which we experience. Always willing to hear a better explanation--

ETA: At this stage of the game, I really should know better than to post in R&P. Sigh...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But you do consider it as a possibility?

I consider everything except blatant logical or mathematical contradictions as possibilities in the very, very limited sense that there is always a 0.00...01% chance that I am a butterfly living in The Matrix dreaming I am Descartes being fooled by an evil demon who is themselves a brain in a vat which is an idea in the mind of a God being electronically simulated by a post-singularity civilisation.

I'm happy to call incredibly unlikely things impossible as a kind of shorthand for "so incredibly unlikely that I fully intend to devote 0% of my brain space to worrying about it", but they aren't impossible in the truly absolute sense.

What is your evidence for 99.99...9% belief in materialism?

The overwhelming majority of properly conducted observations are consistent with a universe that just goes on doing its thing whether or not anyone is looking at it to make sure it does it. The universe, for example, looks very much like it's far older than conscious life could possibly be, barring time travel. Stuff predates life, hence stuff cannot be dependent on life.

As such positing the need for some kind of mind to know about stuff, as opposed to stuff just existing of its own accord, falls immediately afoul of Occam's Razor.

Stuff came first, then minds made out of stuff arose, or at least that's how it looks like to us.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I consider everything except blatant logical or mathematical contradictions as possibilities in the very, very limited sense that there is always a 0.00...01% chance that I am a butterfly living in The Matrix dreaming I am Descartes being fooled by an evil demon who is themselves a brain in a vat which is an idea in the mind of a God being electronically simulated by a post-singularity civilisation.

I plan to steal this.