My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

The evidence doesn't support theism or atheism (strong).

The evidence does in fact support strong atheism. Absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence when expected evidence cannot be found.

The assumption that the universe has been around for billions of years without consciousness existing is just that: an assumption.

Nonsense. It's a conclusion; tentative, but valid.

The evidence shows that the Universe has existed for over 13 billion years.

The only examples of consciousness we know of have existed for well under one billion years, even taking my broad definition of consciousness.

 

[Malerin]

The evidence does in fact support strong atheism. Absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence when expected evidence cannot be found.

If idealism is true, if the universe is a projection of god's mind, then every piece of sensory evidence is evidence of god's existence. You don't know idealism is true or false any more than you know strong atheism is true or false. Your claim boils down to: absence of expected evidence points to atheism because atheism is true. Not very logical, Pixy.

Nonsense. It's a conclusion; tentative, but valid.

The evidence shows that the Universe appears to have existed for over 13 billion years.

I shouldn't have to keep reminding skeptics of this crucial bit. I'm surprised many of you aren't geocentrists. After all, the sun appears to move across the sky.

The only examples of consciousness we know of have existed for well under one billion years, even taking my broad definition of consciousness.

Key phrase highlighted.

 

[Lowpro]

The evidence doesn't support theism or atheism (strong). The assumption that the universe has been around for billions of years without consciousness existing is just that: an assumption.

There is no assumption the universe existed before consciousness, it blatantly did.

The only issue you take on is the fact that for us to make that statement requires us to be consciousness. That is nothing more than a insignificant footnote against the overwhelming evidence that the universe existed well before our existence or any consciousness.

To say otherwise discounts every atom in reality, and atoms are not subjective due to our consciousness.

 

[marplots]

If the world only appears materialistic to me but really isn't; if every test I do doesn't dissuade me, but the tests too are faulty; if the predictions I make based on my materialist viewpoint come true, but not because I'm right, only because I interpret them to be right; if I can map the world as I perceive to be materialist to my own satisfaction; if all that, even if I am somehow wrong -- so what?

In what way does a higher reality that I do not intersect with ever matter at all save, maybe, in counting forum coup? Two theories that are indistinguishable by all tests might as well be no theory at all.

How, in any way, does the soplisist's life differ from mine? Is it that they have more hubris than I?

 

[Lowpro]

How, in any way, does the soplisist's life differ from mine? Is it that they have more hubris than I?

Because reality functions in spite of solipsism in a sense; solipsism goes nowhere and is a useless unprogressive argument. It's a bit insulting but I guess that's subjective.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. I have to rely on my senses. So what? I make a point of studying places where human senses are known to be faulty. As far as the many who say observation can come through anything other than the senses, that's crap until there's a mote of evidence that there's any truth to that. The part that leads to solipsism is the next step. It's where you go from relying on the basics of your senses to saying that's not reliable. When you take that step, you make everything unknowable which is the definition of solipsism. I don't need 100% to be sure enough to behave as though my observations are at least close enough. The trouble here is that you've taken the lack or that 100% as the central theme for your argument and based it all of a solipsistic idea, even though you seem to be backing off of that now. If you're backing off of your major premise, you don't have a rest of the argument any more and you're back at square 1.

That all makes sense in a world generally understood by science and 'western' philosophy.

However there are realms considered by numerous religions and 'eastern' philosophers. which are known or accessed from the same self awareness that Benjack is alluding to.

For example most religious people 'know' God within themselves, rather than externally.

Mystics and ascetics practice techniques of retreating within themselves and accessing realities which are meaningless to many rational thinkers.

Such people may regard physical reality as an illusory aspect of reality (the wheel of samsara).

 

[Belz...]

1. All empirical observations are dependent upon consciousness.

Not necessarily, but all empirical human observations, sure.

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

Wrong. Materialism claims that consciousness is dependent upon something empirical (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.

Sounds like you already has concluded this before 1.

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

No because it can never be empirically tested for. Wasn't that your whole point ? That "A position that can never have empirical support is worthless / false." ?

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.

I don't think we're using the same definition of "consciousness".

 

[Belz...]

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.

Precisely. Functionally, materialism/physicalism works, so there's really no point in discussing other options we'll never be able to test for.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm happy you seem happy that that belief implies materialism=True.

If you think that is what I believe, then you haven't really been reading my posts. I don't think anything of the kind.

 

[Dancing David]

FTFY. You're making an unjusitifed assumption that the way things appear to be is how they really are. You're also assuming atheism is true. I can just as easily assume theism is true and conclude the universe is mind-dependent.

We only have the appearance, the rest is unfathomable ontology. Equally true and equally false. No one should not assume that appearance is all that there is, but that is all we have.

Define a thea or theo that has observable characteristics and then it is open to something other than speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

The evidence doesn't support theism or atheism (strong). The assumption that the universe has been around for billions of years without consciousness existing is just that: an assumption.

The definition of consciousness not withstanding, we can speculate on the arrival of consciousness without our precense. But how do you observe and determine that it is there and not something else?

The assumption is that there are photons that travel between stars without our consciousness of them, until you demonstrate that there are other consciousness, it is speculation that there may be other consciousnesses.

 

[Dancing David]

If idealism is true, if the universe is a projection of god's mind, then every piece of sensory evidence is evidence of god's existence.

And this is empty ontology, from within a system, you can not determine if it is ideal or material they are equal empty speculation. Therefore that is not evidence, that is speculation.

Now we do have evidence of bodies whose gravity is so massive that light can not escape the event horizon.

 

[Nonpareil]

If idealism is true, if the universe is a projection of god's mind, then every piece of sensory evidence is evidence of god's existence.

Which is simply circular. It isn't evidence of idealism unless you can find other evidence that idealism is true. Otherwise all you're doing is assuming.

Your claim boils down to: absence of expected evidence points to atheism because atheism is true.

No, it doesn't.

I shouldn't have to keep reminding skeptics of this crucial bit. I'm surprised many of you aren't geocentrists. After all, the sun appears to move across the sky.

So you say we should ignore further evidence and simply assume that our initial conclusion is true?

That's a terrible straw man. It needs to be less transparent so that no one notices how horribly you're twisting the other party's words. Try harder.

Key phrase highlighted.

Nonsense. It's a conclusion; tentative, but valid.

Key phrase highlighted.

All you have to do is show that consciousness existed earlier in the universe's history.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

@Ichneumonwasp: Sadly you do not get my point. Seems like I failed to express it the right way. So I try again:

Of course we can believe many things (whether we always decide what we want to believe is another point), but the question is, what does the belief correspond to / mean? If we cannot find this, we are holding a belief that is empty / superfluous and potentially confusing.

I don't say there is no other right belief than mine to hold, I just wonder what a belief that many people hold (there exist something regardless whether consciousness exist), actually means.
I don't think there is a point to discussing for the purpose of being right, so I don't mind disagreement. But I like to understand what is it that you disagree about (not which words). In general I suspect we do not disagree about what we mean, but simply don't understand each other (and sometimes not ourselves ).

I disagree with any stance that holds that we can know what really *is*. Idealism is an OK position to take; but we need to be clear -- it is as much a decision as one that holds that there are things outside of consciousness.

My position is hardly ego- or humancentric because I explicitly refer to consciousness as basic entity, which seems to exist beyond my ego (as other persons) and very well may exist as totally different beings. But yes, I am consciousness-centric, because I have yet to understand what outside of consciousness means (not outside of my consciousness!).

Please don't take the criticism personally. It is a humanocentric or egocentric position because it holds that the way that we know is all that there is. As I stated earlier, you are perfectly free to say that you are discussing all that there is or can be *for you*; but that is not an ontological statement. It is an epistemic one -- it refers to what you can possibly know. It is still possible that there is much out there that isn't you. It is simply impossible for us to know this with absolute certainty.

probably misphrased what I meant: Not what I know right now is all that can be for me, but what *can* be known for me is all that can be for me.
So my question is: How do you get from "what there possibly can be for me" to "what is (apart from what is for you)" - how do you bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology?
If there is no way, how do you talk about "what is" without talking nonsense (because you are talking about something you can never acquire as knowledge)?

You were perfectly clear.

We can't bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology. That is my point. The best we can do is build models of the way things seem to work. That is what science does. It doesn't comment on metaphysics.

I agree that time and energy are foundations of *material science*. But materialism is more than this, namely the claim that they are more fundamental that consciousness.

Even a simple examination of our consciousness -- which is all we have access to -- shows that they are more fundamental, unless you want to make consciousness = awarenesss of the moment and not include all the other mental features, such as thinking, etc. All mental processes are processes -- they 'move forward', so energy and time appear to be fundamental to all of those processes.

If looking at what we can know (in the most general sense) doesn't get us nearer to *what really is* what does? And if nothing does what does "what really is" mean (this is an sincere question)?

If you can't say what it means and I don't already know what it means for you (I don't!), you could speak of "DEHdfgh" instead of "what really is" and it meant the same for me.

Hopefully I got a little closer to convey what I mean. It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking what I write is clear for others, because I think it's so obvious. But it need not be for others.

Nothing gets us nearer to what really is. We can't know it with absolute certainty. We can only model it and try to make sense of it. It could be vibrating strings; it could be the mind of God; it could be a big computer simulation. There is no way for us to know from inside it. We cannot get outside; it's fruitless to try. This is why Rorty gave up on philosophy. A problem that has not been solved for 2500 years likely will never be solved.

 

[Bad vibe]

FTFY. You're making an unjusitifed assumption that the way things appear to be is how they really are. You're also assuming atheism is true. I can just as easily assume theism is true and conclude the universe is mind-dependent.

Then a simple experiment to test reality seems sensible to test the hypothosis that the Universe is dependent on the senses? ie take a "believer and a "non believer" deprive them of sensory input ...I dunno blind fold and ear plugs? stand them on the edge of a high rooftop inform them of thier predicament prior and then ask them to step forward once suitably deprived of all sensory data. I think it would be possible to make a few predictions on the outcome of any such experiment.
I'm no scientist but I'm sure some of you could devise a suitable experiment? I have no time for philosophy for the most part if I want to know its raining I'll look out the window or go outside I wouldn't ask a philosopher lifes to short

note* this is more an experiment to test conviction of ideology than reality

 

[Malerin]

Then a simple experiment to test reality seems sensible to test the hypothosis that the Universe is dependent on the senses? ie take a "believer and a "non believer" deprive them of sensory input ...I dunno blind fold and ear plugs? stand them on the edge of a high rooftop inform them of thier predicament prior and then ask them to step forward once suitably deprived of all sensory data. I think it would be possible to make a few predictions on the outcome of any such experiment.
I'm no scientist but I'm sure some of you could devise a suitable experiment? I have no time for philosophy for the most part if I want to know its raining I'll look out the window or go outside I wouldn't ask a philosopher lifes to short

note* this is more an experiment to test conviction of ideology than reality

Or ask them to fly a plane into a building? I guess the better question is, why does the force of other people's convictions matter to you?

 

[Malerin]

Not necessarily, but all empirical human observations, sure.



Wrong. Materialism claims that consciousness is dependent upon something empirical (matter).


Sounds like you already has concluded this before 1.



No because it can never be empirically tested for. Wasn't that your whole point ? That "A position that can never have empirical support is worthless / false." ?



I don't think we're using the same definition of "consciousness".

Reread (2).

 

[Malerin]

I disagree with any stance that holds that we can know what really *is*. Idealism is an OK position to take; but we need to be clear -- it is as much a decision as one that holds that there are things outside of consciousness.

There are plenty of strong atheists and staunch materialists here to disagree with.

 

[benjayk]

We can't bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology. That is my point. The best we can do is build models of the way things seem to work. That is what science does. It doesn't comment on metaphysics.

So we actually agree that if we can not bridge the gap between epistemology and ontology, ontology is really just nice words that have no element of verifiable truth.

But this either leads ontology as a philosophical position ad absurdum (after all philosophy is about "wisdom" and not about telling nice stories) - or, we limit ontology to what IS for *us* because we call "what is for us" (with "us" being as broad as we can conceive it, all kinds of subjective experience) "what is".

Why shouldn't we do this, as we could not tell the difference between the two?
Because if this is the case, it seems perfectly justifiable to equate two terms.
After all if someone uses a word "XcsaSD" the same way and defines it exactly as the word "window", there should be no problem using it interchangeably.

Even a simple examination of our consciousness -- which is all we have access to -- shows that they are more fundamental, unless you want to make consciousness = awarenesss of the moment and not include all the other mental features, such as thinking, etc. All mental processes are processes -- they 'move forward', so energy and time appear to be fundamental to all of those processes.

I take consciousness to mean roughly the same as awareness of the moment, but I don't see why we have to exclude all other mental features? Awareness of the moment can have many expressions, yet has the fundamental (and quite mysterious) feature of being observable - which is the most important in this debate.

Nothing gets us nearer to what really is.

I think it's unfortunate to see fundamental reality as something we can not have knowledge about, because I don't see any reason that we shouldn't call "the fundamental reality as we can know it" the fudamental reality.
Because otherwise "fundamental reality" are empty words, but for me it feels "fundamental reality" "should" have and can have meaning.

Yes, this is a question of taste, but do you really want to abondon the meaning in "fundamental reality"?

We can't know it with absolute certainty.
We can only model it and try to make sense of it.

I agree, when "knowing" means knowing with our minds (=sets of beliefs).
But direct knowledge (qualia) is absolutely certain, and thus is the perfect canidate for "what really is".

 

[dogjones]

Like a bit of Berkley do yiz?