• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.
Click to expand...
More confusing the map with the territory.
 
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If everthing only exists as a figment of my imagination, by what means does my imagination exist?[/FONT]
 
edge said:
Before time three dimensions had to be discribed in mathamatical forms.
pretty simple and not backwards?
Click to expand...
Before time?

You mean in the time when there wasn't any time?

I do wish you guys would think about these things.
 
punshhh said:
Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.
Click to expand...
By the way - do you think that this creator could alter the value of Pi or have chosen a different value for Pi? Do you think that this creator could decide that right angled triangles don't conform to the Pythagorean Theorem after all?
Of course they have a get out clause, they can say ...
Click to expand...
Well thank you for deciding what we would answer before we have a chance to answer.

Very thoughtful of you I am sure.

But really you don't need to bother.

Because the only get out clause anyone needs is to point out the illogical nature of your claim.

By the way, since you are agreeing with edge, do you agree with him that there was a time when there wasn't any time?
 
ynot said:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If everthing only exists as a figment of my imagination, by what means does my imagination exist?[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Everything does not ONLY exist as a figment in your imagination, only your perception of everything is a figment. It's still a collection of sensory data you can compare and confirm with other entities who use the same sensory data.
 
Halfcentaur said:
Everything does not ONLY exist as a figment in your imagination, only your perception of everything is a figment. It's still a collection of sensory data you can compare and confirm with other entities who use the same sensory data.
Click to expand...
That misuses the word "figment". Everything in our awareness is a mental representation of something.

Sometimes they are mental representations of things for which our sense organs have collected data.

Sometimes they are mental representations of things that our mind has created in absense of sense data - pink dragons and so on.

"Figment" is usually used for the latter case.

The moon I observe is a mental representation.

The man in the moon is a mental represenation.

The latter is a figment, the former is not.
 
marplots said:
I can't speak for skepticism at large, but I would argue that something other than me is in control. Except control is a bad concept, because it embodies the sense of purpose and direction towards some outside goal not part of the process itself.

Certainly you at least find yourself "acting on automatic" at times, where you are doing what would appear to be intelligent and directed actions, but free from a sense of volition? And aren't there, as well, dozens of bodily processes that you perform with no conscious thought or effort? Do you ever yawn; digest; grow hair?

I think the sticking point might be the loss of responsibility that comes with accepting a reactive, emergent mind rather than some hidden "me" in the mix. I'll grant that it seems to harm the idea of morality, but you can map responsibility onto an idea of "defective" or "abnormal" rather than an idea of morality springing from a non-biological/non-psychological something.

If you take that route, you will end up with something similar to how we treat dangerous dogs. We evaluate them not on the basis of morality or responsibility, but by what we think their innate characteristics are. We don't blame them so much as understand that dogs come in different packages with different behaviors.

My viewpoint does do quite a bit of damage to religion however. I don't see how that can be helped, because religion seems to be based on the false idea that we have the ability to choose what to believe in.
Click to expand...

You'll have to wait seven days for your answer. Annouid seems to have annoyed the mods.
 
Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.

Of course they have a get out clause, they can say;

"sorry we don't know, it cannot be known"

"there's no point in speculating about what can't be tested for"

etc.
Click to expand...

Math isn't a figment of our imagination, it's just a process of determining the space between two points. Math is as real as reality can be to be honest. They are not created by our imagination, in fact the only part consciousness plays a role in math is putting a name to a VERY REAL phenomena. We didn't exist to make up math, math was already there, we just slapped the label on it because our brains are the mightiest label makers ever.
 
Last edited:
If I judge it correctly then most people here regard materialism not as a metaphysical position, but merely as a description how the world (as far as we know it) works, inferred from the evidence we have. It is not a statement about what *really* exists at the fundamental level (this may be unknowable or even a useless question to ask). Correct?

I would be fine with that if this really were the case.

But I doubt it:
I ask myself how certain statements about the world that seem to be made frequently by materialists follow straight from the evidence with as little interpretation as possible (especially no metaphysical speculation).

-"There are only material things."
Physics makes statements about specific things we can observe/measure. In what way does physics state which kind of entities exist or do not exists?
And: What are numbers (and their relations) - on which physics depends - if not immaterial entities? They exists in no specific time, location and don't have physical properties either. But they DO exist, because we can refer to them.
What kind of evidence suggests they don't exist, except if we already presume only physical things exist?

-"The brain produces consciousness."
Which physical theory can distinguish if the brain produces consciousness or vice versa? And how?
It's true that consciousness *as far as we can access in any conclusive manner* manifests only in close relation to activity in the brain.
But it's equally true that brains can just be observed if consciousness is present.

-"Consciousness dies with the brain."
As far as we know consciousness is strongly related to information patterns.

It is true that the kind of information patterns that correspond to our mental activity have been found, up to now, only in the brain. But this is not proof that this can not be otherwise. Maybe other matter encodes information that are related to human consciousness that we have no access to at the moment. The pattern may occur in our future (on a computer) or in a form we cannot decode yet or in a part of the universe that is too far away to be observed (for example simulations of humans on computers of an alien civilization).
As the brain dies we may find ourselves in a environment where a continuation of our consciousness is encoded in a different form than a biological brain.

Nothing in physics makes this impossible:
The universe is full of fractal repitition and variations of similiar information patterns at the scale where we can make observations. For example there exist countless stars and galaxies that are very similar in their structure.

Because in restrictions in our ability to observe small-scale patterns that are far away we cannot now for sure if this is the case with the smale-scale patterns like the structure of our brain or cells or technology.
But we have no reason to assume that these patterns cannot repeat or appear in other variations in other parts of the universe.

It is very possible physically that the universe is infinite, in which case there will be exact replications along with tiny and big variations of patterns of all kinds.

Also we find variations of similar patterns in very different environments (for example many patterns in our enivronment are approximately repeated in our modelling of them or the form of some galaxies are reminiscent of processes in our atmosphere).

Therefore we cannot expect that the pattern of our consciousness is exactly localized in one particular brain, because there may be many brains or other structures where there are patterns that correspond to our mental states are encoded.

Currently we have simply no way of saying how information patterns that are relevant for human consciousness are distributed in the universe and so we cannot say what happens with us when our physical brain seems to die to outside observers.

Also, if we embrace the theory that relates mental states to computations in the mathematical sense (which is very compatible with our observations), we are not localized in any part of the universe, because we really live in an computational (non-physical) world and the physical universe is an appearance emerging from the structure of computations. So minds that are described by computations are primary rather than a physical world that gives rise to minds.
 
benjayk said:
If I judge it correctly then most people here regard materialism not as a metaphysical position, but merely as a description how the world (as far as we know it) works, inferred from the evidence we have. It is not a statement about what *really* exists at the fundamental level (this may be unknowable or even a useless question to ask). Correct?
Click to expand...
I don't know what most people here think, but the discussion so far has centered on Materialism as a metaphysical position - this has been explicitly stated.

However modern philosophical Materialism is not a metaphysical position, it is more an analytical position. Modern Materialism does not say "everything is matter", instead is focusses on how theories (including folk theories about every day reality) can be reduced to, or eliminated in favour of, other more specific scientific theories.

For example Eliminative Materialism claims that folk theories about the mind will be eliminated and replaced by completed neuro-science.

On the other hand a reductionist speaks of one theory reducing to another using inter-theoretic identities.

I don't think that this serves any better purpose than metaphysical materialism but I am just clarifying.
I ask myself how certain statements about the world that seem to be made frequently by materialists follow straight from the evidence with as little interpretation as possible (especially no metaphysical speculation).

-"There are only material things."
Click to expand...
But how often do you hear this said by a Materialist?
Nothing in physics makes this impossible:
Click to expand...
Nothing in physics makes it so either. And this makes it just as untenable a position as "everything is matter".
Also, if we embrace the theory that relates mental states to computations in the mathematical sense (which is very compatible with our observations), we are not localized in any part of the universe, because we really live in an computational (non-physical) world and the physical universe is an appearance emerging from the structure of computations. So minds that are described by computations are primary rather than a physical world that gives rise to minds.
Click to expand...
Again, just as unprovable and unfalsifiable as "everything is matter".

Why have any metaphysical position at all - since none can be demonstrated to be true or false?

Does a metaphysical position provide any value? Does it add anything to our sum of knowledge?

If not then why have it at all.

Chuck metaphysics out - it serves no purpose.
 
punshhh said:
Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)
Click to expand...
No.

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.
Click to expand...
No.
 
benjayk said:
As far as we know consciousness is strongly related to information patterns.
Click to expand...
Yes.
It is true that the kind of information patterns that correspond to our mental activity have been found, up to now, only in the brain. But this is not proof that this can not be otherwise. Maybe other matter encodes information that are related to human consciousness that we have no access to at the moment. The pattern may occur in our future (on a computer) or in a form we cannot decode yet or in a part of the universe that is too far away to be observed (for example simulations of humans on computers of an alien civilization).
As the brain dies we may find ourselves in a environment where a continuation of our consciousness is encoded in a different form than a biological brain.

Nothing in physics makes this impossible:
The universe is full of fractal repitition and variations of similiar information patterns at the scale where we can make observations. For example there exist countless stars and galaxies that are very similar in their structure.

Because in restrictions in our ability to observe small-scale patterns that are far away we cannot now for sure if this is the case with the smale-scale patterns like the structure of our brain or cells or technology.
But we have no reason to assume that these patterns cannot repeat or appear in other variations in other parts of the universe.

It is very possible physically that the universe is infinite, in which case there will be exact replications along with tiny and big variations of patterns of all kinds.

Also we find variations of similar patterns in very different environments (for example many patterns in our enivronment are approximately repeated in our modelling of them or the form of some galaxies are reminiscent of processes in our atmosphere).

Therefore we cannot expect that the pattern of our consciousness is exactly localized in one particular brain, because there may be many brains or other structures where there are patterns that correspond to our mental states are encoded.

Currently we have simply no way of saying how information patterns that are relevant for human consciousness are distributed in the universe and so we cannot say what happens with us when our physical brain seems to die to outside observers.

Also, if we embrace the theory that relates mental states to computations in the mathematical sense (which is very compatible with our observations), we are not localized in any part of the universe, because we really live in an computational (non-physical) world and the physical universe is an appearance emerging from the structure of computations. So minds that are described by computations are primary rather than a physical world that gives rise to minds.
Click to expand...
Reading more closely this is just word salad. Everything in physics makes it impossible.

You say mental states are computations - I agree that is probably the case. Others here will say it is definitely the case. But even those who disagree will probably agree that they depend upon computatoins

In order to have a computation you need a mechanism capable of making that computation and you need data.

We observe a mechanism capable of making these computations - the brain. All scientific evidence points to the fact that the brain is in fact making the computations and if the brain stops working then these computations stop.

All the data for these computations is localised.

If you were to theorise, as you do, that consciousness produces the brain then what is the mechanism that is producing consciousness?

You have to posit that there is some other computer, not the brain, that is doing the computations and that this mysterious computer is, for some reason, producing an illusion of a brain and then doing the computations in just such a way as it appears that the brain is doing them.

That is, to say the least, most unparsimonious.
 
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
ynot said:
If everything only exists as a figment of my imagination, by what means does my imagination exist?
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
Robin said:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If you were to theorise, as you do, that consciousness produces the brain then what is the mechanism that is producing consciousness? [/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Snap![/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Would have to be some non-material “mechanism” of course. Probably some non-material God that created a Universal cosmic conciousness illusion of matter rather than creating actual matter. Perhaps we could call it “lazy design”. [/FONT]
 
ynot said:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Snap![/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Would have to be some non-material “mechanism” of course. Probably some non-material God that created a Universal cosmic conciousness illusion of matter rather than creating actual matter. Perhaps we could call it “lazy design”. [/FONT]
Click to expand...
And what is your evidence for this?
 
marplots said:
yy2bggggs said:
the part that is aware is not the thing that says "I make decisions"
Click to expand...
I don't think the part I highlighted follows.
Click to expand...
Reporting is a teleological function, involving a particular choreography of muscle movements, according to the medium, with the goal of conveying information. This involves decision making, which involves a "part of you that makes decisions".

So, yes, it follows. If you're going to say that the part of you that is aware doesn't make decisions, then you have to say that the part of you reporting the phrase "I make decisions" is not the part of you that is aware.
As you started out saying, "Presumably, I'm just mistaken." The question is whether the feeling of having made a decision is the same as the deed.
Click to expand...
That's not the question at all; I'm guessing you misinterpreted something here. When I said "say" and put a phrase in quotes, I'm not colloquially referring to a feeling; rather, I'm referring to the literal act of reporting a phrase that has that particular content.

Nevertheless:
I'd like to point out that our minds do lie to us to make a sensible world.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree that our mind "lies" to us. Intentional binding is an apt example--this is a particular illusion of timing where two events spaced out in time are perceived as closer together in time than they otherwise would be perceived if they are perceived to be related by an agency (doesn't even have to be you--the illusion works if you think someone else is acting).

But I'm not so sure whether or not you can say that the mind does this "to make a sensible world". I would go as far as to say that the mind tells lies due to some sort of function for some sort of pragmatic reason; I say this because it seems that it tells us the same kinds of lies in the same circumstances whether we're "onto" it or not.
If the argument is simply one of "it happens to fast to distinguish" then I might propose the pair, "invisible decision-making"/"awareness of having made a decision" would also fit into that gap.
Click to expand...
That's the same thing I've been proposing anyway.
The advantage seems to be that investigating mind with analogies to biological processes that we understand better grounds us in the material instead of the metaphysical.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this phrase means. Are you trying to say that if I don't form biological analogies I'll wander into the metaphysical?
When you work the other way round, there seems to be too much guesswork and not enough discovery, experiment and data.
Click to expand...
And what do you mean here by "the other way around"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom