My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

I've just noticed one skeptic claiming that the universe does not necessarily require a cause and another, say its special pleading to suggest that there is one cause that may not have a cause.

Shall I go with your line or the other?

As I already noted, both are fallacies, and both, clearly, are present in the first cause argument, which is why it is worthless.

Just because an argument is false in one way doesn't mean it's not also false in other ways. Theistic arguments commonly contain a multitude of fallacies.

 

[annnnoid]

marplots
And as weird as it sounds, I do not think I control what I think about. I couldn't, for instance, create now the thoughts I will be thinking five minutes from now or even predict them generally. I don't control my brain, my brain creates and controls me.

dlorde
Yes. The problem is, we are so used to conflating 'you' and 'conscious awareness', that can be difficult to conceptualize an awareness that retrospectively assumes agency but is actually a passive confabulator.

Wow….now there’s a mouthful. If I were a died-in-the-wool skeptic I’d seriously have to wonder what you’re talking about there. Or at the very least, I’d have to enquire of whatever alternate awareness it is you’re suggesting I’m confabulating with. Sounds borderline wooish to me. But then again, I did see this Eddie Murphy movie once where he posited the existence of little men who somehow managed to occupy here-to-for unknown regions of our existence and guided us in some way which kind of sounds like what you’re describing right there.

Check the sig marplots….Fincher: in charge but not in control. You aren’t entering menopause are you? Mid-life crisis or something? Discovering that ‘something’ else is actually in control….hmmmmmmm. What…d’ya suppose? Other areas of being not known to exist as other areas of being by those who define the definitions of areas of being. Could be onto something here. You must be an advanced skeptic. Most skeptics seem anathema to any suggestion that something other than them is in control, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Maybe because its (….oh no…) nothing but metaphysical. No science there, just…’…oh my, it would seem I have to put away my calculus books and conclude that I don’t actually control my own life…’. Don’t worry, I’ve found this thing….beer it’s called…makes all your troubles go away.

D D….you don’t do stand-up do you?

 

[PixyMisa]

Wow….now there’s a mouthful. If I were a died-in-the-wool skeptic I’d seriously have to wonder what you’re talking about there.

Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential

You're welcome!

Or at the very least, I’d have to enquire of whatever alternate awareness it is you’re suggesting I’m confabulating with. Sounds borderline wooish to me. But then again, I did see this Eddie Murphy movie once where he posited the existence of little men who somehow managed to occupy here-to-for unknown regions of our existence and guided us in some way which kind of sounds like what you’re describing right there.

Check the sig marplots….Fincher: in charge but not in control. You aren’t entering menopause are you? Mid-life crisis or something? Discovering that ‘something’ else is actually in control….hmmmmmmm. What…d’ya suppose? Other areas of being not known to exist as other areas of being by those who define the definitions of areas of being. Could be onto something here. You must be an advanced skeptic. Most skeptics seem anathema to any suggestion that something other than them is in control, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Maybe because its (….oh no…) nothing but metaphysical. No science there, just…’…oh my, it would seem I have to put away my calculus books and conclude that I don’t actually control my own life…’. Don’t worry, I’ve found this thing….beer it’s called…makes all your troubles go away.

D D….you don’t do stand-up do you?

You're babbling. In writing.

 

[annnnoid]

Pixy...you're overextending yourself severly. 'Google it'...remember. All that's necessary.

 

[PixyMisa]

Google it suffices when multiple references have already been provided.

The link to Libet's work has already been provided, but maybe I'm feeling generous today.

Anyway, read it.

 

[annnnoid]

Boys oh boys Pixy…I can sure see why the Libet would set your little orgasmotron a-spinning. No free will. Yoicks. Curious though…what the hell is it that precedes the unconsciousness neuronal processes that supposedly ( “further study”) precedes volitional acts. I guess it doesn’t matter. Further study no doubt.

Of course…it all depends how we define free will doesn’t it. Free will is my ability to believe/feel I am responsible for my own life and act accordingly. And perhaps it is this very same volitional interaction which precedes the preceding neuronal process previously referred to as preceding other volitional processes. But that does get mixed up doesn’t it…but that does somehow describe how much we actually do know about this stuff as well doesn’t it? No….didn’t think so….but thanks for the generosity all the same. I’ll read on and educate myself accordingly.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Among all of this mess is something that semantically makes sense for you to call an agent that is both aware of and initiates actions

Well, aparently not. Although this is not entirely conclusive, Libet's experiments strongly suggest that the part with agency is not self-aware and the part that is self-aware is not an agent.

Libet's experiments suggests that there is something (RP) correlated to an action that predates his subjects' reported correlations of their sensation that they initiated an action to their measurement of a clock.

I'm not sure that suggests too much of anything.

There's some very clever mental sleight-of-hand going on to make it look like your mind is one cohesive whole rather than a synthesis of a whole bunch of subsystems that don't always see eye to eye.

Agreed. But this doesn't deter the existence of an entity that can be meaningfully referred to as an agency.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Well, "you" is the sum total of all of those parts. But the part of "you" that is conscious isn't the one making the decisions, so yes.

Well, sure... but I wouldn't have it any other way. Awareness and decision making are two different things. Something presumably has to happen for you to be aware of it. The main question is whether or not you can meaningfully call that piece a part of you--and that's a much bigger question than which order things are in.

Let's just start by calling it "illusory agency", because we do in fact seem to have agency. The interesting thing is, there are a lot of mechanisms that come into play to produce this illusion, and those mechanisms seem to actually serve pragmatic purposes.

Which "you" is agency ? The part in 1 ? I wasn't refering to that.

No, the part you're wanting to refer to in 3. In particular, I'm guessing you want to say more that our "illusory agency" doesn't make decisions, than you are trying to say that the part of our brain that makes decisions has no part that is aware of itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Libet's experiments suggests that there is something (RP) correlated to an action that predates his subjects' reported correlations of their sensation that they initiated an action to their measurement of a clock.

I'm not sure that suggests too much of anything.

The subjects are, supposedly, consciously deciding to press the button.

We can consistently detect this in the motor cortex a significant interval before the subject is consciously aware of their own decision.

That, and other more recent experiments, strongly suggests that conscious decision-making is an illusion.

Agreed. But this doesn't deter the existence of an entity that can be meaningfully referred to as an agency.

Sure. But all the evidence points to the agency being unconscious.

 

[AlBell]

And as weird as it sounds, I do not think I control what I think about. I couldn't, for instance, create now the thoughts I will be thinking five minutes from now or even predict them generally. I don't control my brain, my brain creates and controls me.

Perhaps you need to re-consider where 'you' fit in there.

 

[annnnoid]

That, and other more recent experiments, strongly suggests that conscious decision-making is an illusion.

It suggests no such thing. The question this whole process raises is just how does this process occur (which is in no way sufficiently revealed by these experiments). Something, quite obviously, initiates what we refer to as ‘conscious decision making’. And something, quite obviously, is fundamentally responsible for the absolute conviction a very great many credible people assert when they confidently proclaim that they are responsible for their own lives (not to mention the reasonable assertion that a life lived responsibly is all-but-invariably more successful/satisfying than one where personal responsibility is dysfunctional). You would refer to it dismissively as ‘sleight-of hand’. That is massively simplistic and premature.

 

[CurtC]

Something, quite obviously, initiates what we refer to as ‘conscious decision making’.

What initiates our conscious decision-making is that our subconscious just made a decision and our conscious mind is left with the task of rationalizing it.

And something, quite obviously, is fundamentally responsible for the absolute conviction a very great many credible people assert when they confidently proclaim that they are responsible for their own lives (not to mention the reasonable assertion that a life lived responsibly is all-but-invariably more successful/satisfying than one where personal responsibility is dysfunctional

I can't speak for pixy, but that all seems beside the point.

 

[Nonpareil]

I can't speak for pixy, but that all seems beside the point.

Par for the course. He doesn't understand what the argument ad populum fallacy is.

 

[PixyMisa]

It suggests no such thing.

Yeah, it does. Sorry.

The question this whole process raises is just how does this process occur (which is in no way sufficiently revealed by these experiments).

No, it indicates that it doesn't actually happen.

Something, quite obviously, initiates what we refer to as ‘conscious decision making’.

Not according to the evidence.

And something, quite obviously, is fundamentally responsible for the absolute conviction a very great many credible people assert when they confidently proclaim that they are responsible for their own lives (not to mention the reasonable assertion that a life lived responsibly is all-but-invariably more successful/satisfying than one where personal responsibility is dysfunctional).

They fell for the illusion.

You would refer to it dismissively as ‘sleight-of hand’.

Dismissive? Hell, I think it's amazing.

That is massively simplistic and premature.

Not according to the evidence.

P.S. Argumentum ad populum? Not evidence.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The subjects are, supposedly, consciously deciding to press the button.

Not exactly. They are consciously deciding when to press the button.

From Libet per se, it's hard to tell what's going on, because you can't really tell--especially from the setup--what the RP actually represents.

That, and other more recent experiments, strongly suggests that conscious decision-making is an illusion.

I'm not sure if you're referring to that section or the entire article.

The Matsuhashi and Hallett study is insufficient for your conclusion; it shows that something happens on average 2.8 seconds before movement onset, and that about 1.4 seconds before movement onset subjects presumably subjectively compare a tone signal they hear to their own awareness of intent to move. We still don't know what the RP is.

Ammon and Gandevia results are interesting, but I think unrelated.

Kuhn and Brass I'm not even sure how to interpret.

Now, I actually agree with the sentiment--I think it's only reasonable that the decisions are made, and then we're conscious of having made it; as if we sense that the decision has been made. But I don't think any of the experiments on that page "strongly suggest" this, because I simply don't see how they rule out that the intent is a causal precedent to the action.

(ETA: Consider a possible RP causes conscious intent, which then causes action. Everything's in the right order here, but you have conscious intent causing action.)

Sure. But all the evidence points to the agency being unconscious.

Sure, but your unconscious agency is affected by conscious thoughts, at least to the degree that it is able to report which thoughts are conscious. And both the agency and the "conscious part" deal with the same teleological-level information.

 

[yy2bggggs]

What initiates our conscious decision-making is that our subconscious just made a decision and our conscious mind is left with the task of rationalizing it.

And/or sensing it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure, but your unconscious agency is affected by conscious thoughts, at least to the degree that it is able to report which thoughts are conscious. And both the agency and the "conscious part" deal with the same teleological-level information.

Yes, there has to be some sort of feedback going on. The experimental data strongly suggests that it's not simply a question of consciously making a decision and action then following, but on the other hand it's not plausible that consciousness is purely a internal replay function.

 

[punshhh]

Why not?



I know what?



Both. They're both equally valid objections to the same argument.

The argument from first cause says that everything must have a cause, except God for some reason. That's special pleading. It also assumes that the universe must have a cause with no reason for doing so.

Neither excludes the other; they're both just pointing out different problems with the argument.

Why can't I accept that anything finite can actually exist?

Well I see no difference between a space-time bubble(the known universe) and any other finite form, say a banana.

They are both finite, if finite, presumably they have a beginning and an end, both spatially and temporally(I am viewing the space time bubble from outside the bubble(subjectively)).

Or do they not have a beginning or end?

Now lets consider for sake of argument that nothing exists, there is no existence of anything. Fine no paradox, but I have evidence that something does exist, I am holding a banana in my hand.

How did that banana arise?

Could it have popped out of a state of total non existence of anything?

Or does it have no beginning or end?


You may have misunderstood my position regarding first cause, that is not my position. I threw the first cause argument out at the age of about ten.

I recollect an occasion at about that same time, I was about nine or ten. I went on a school trip to Birmingham university, my local font of knowledge. We had been told that we were to attend a lecture by a well renowned professor of physics and we should each think of a question to ask him.
Now I was already a budding philosopher and I already had my question, a question I had been asking folk for sometime.

During the lecture, the group of children I was in were wispering to each other asking who had a question to ask at the end, no one did, apart from me. When I told them what it was, they all said no! no! you cant ask that.
When the time came, they were trying to hold me down. I nearly faltered, being a shy child I didn't want to stand up amongst hundreds of school children and ask a question of this high and mighty professor, not least if it was a silly question, as I was being told.

Something inside me impelled me to stand up, I new this was my one chance to ask my question to some one who might be able to enlighten me as to the answer.

I stood up with my hand in the air, suddenly everyone looked round, the professor looked up at me and asked me for my question. So I said it,
"what is beyond the universe?", there was silence and gasps around me.

The professor realising there was a silence, said, "well we just don't know, its a good question though, thankyou for asking". I was treated as a fool and mocked for a few days after that.

Now I'm asking it again, because I still do not have an answer from a physicist.

Any answers?

 

[punshhh]

Yes, there has to be some sort of feedback going on.

You can say that again!

 

[PixyMisa]

Why can't I accept that anything finite can actually exist?

Well I see no difference between a space-time bubble(the known universe) and any other finite form, say a banana.

They are both finite, if finite, presumably they have a beginning and an end, both spatially and temporally(I am viewing the space time bubble from outside the bubble(subjectively)).

Or do they not have a beginning or end?

Now lets consider for sake of argument that nothing exists, there is no existence of anything. Fine no paradox, but I have evidence that something does exist, I am holding a banana in my hand.

How did that banana arise?

Could it have popped out of a state of total non existence of anything?

Bananas? No. Subatomic particles, yes. Happens constantly.

I stood up with my hand in the air, suddenly everyone looked round, the professor looked up at me and asked me for my question. So I said it,
"what is beyond the universe?", there was silence and gasps around me.

The professor realising there was a silence, said, "well we just don't know, its a good question though, thankyou for asking". I was treated as a fool and mocked for a few days after that.

Now I'm asking it again, because I still do not have an answer from a physicist.

Any answers?

The Universe is by definition causally closed. If there is anything beyond it, and we have some way to know that, then that something is not beyond the Universe but part of it.

In other words, the question makes no sense.