• 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.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

Dave Rogers said:
When I see the colour red, I experience seeing the colour red. When I see the colour yellow, I experience seeing the colour yellow. These are tautologies. Since a tautology must be true under any set of assumptions, they cannot be used to prove or disprove any theory, including materialism. Your argument is therefore demonstrably specious.

Dave
Click to expand...

No. The fact that to you it is obvious that the red is red does not mean that it explains materialism: it is actually the other way around. You have to explain how is it posible that from something as “concrete “ as a brain (matter) can arise something as “abstract” as a feeling or the experience of the redness of red.
 
Darat said:
Can be induced by altering the chemical composition in the brain; also such feelings can be induced by physically altering the brain. So that evidence indicates it is "atoms".



Still not understanding this part. I don't feel anything when I see something that is red. I may decide to categorise something based on my perceptions, for example "that is red apple", "that is a green apple".
Click to expand...

Maybe you do not understand it because it is admitedly a bit difficoult to grasp _and to explain_ though once you do it it is quite obvious.

Think of it as hardware vs. software.
 
devhdb said:
Nothing exists except matter.
Click to expand...
Then it would depend upon what is meant by "matter". If matter was defined as "whatever exists" then it is trivially true.

If matter is defined as "made of atoms" then it is trivially false (neutron stars for example).

"Made of quarks" doesn't fare much better.

In this forum we have long searched for a working definition of matter and never found one that could gain consensus.

Generally positions like Materialism and Idealism are poorly defined.
 
devhdb said:
The fact that to you it is obvious that the red is red does not mean that it explains materialism:
Click to expand...

You didn't comprehend my post; I suggested no such thing.

devhdb said:
You have to explain how is it posible that from something as “concrete “ as a brain (matter) can arise something as “abstract” as a feeling or the experience of the redness of red.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Your request for everyone else to change your mind is a dishonest one; you clearly have no intention of changing your mind.

Dave
 
Robin said:
When I have made a metaphysical claim in this forum I have set out

1. Here is what I think is the case and;
2. Here is why I think it is the case.

Thereafter there is a basis for discussion during which someone may or not change my mind.

Now we have the case of

1. Here is what I think is the case and;
2. Change my mind.

No basis for discussion because we have no idea why he thinks the conclusion follows from the premise.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the premise "The study of atoms does not explain the redness of red", how does the conclusion "Materialism = fake" follow?
Click to expand...

Well, I think that it is self obvious that if materialism is all that exists but materialism cannot explain the mystical experience during a sunset or the sense of awe listening to Muddy Waters then something must be lacking, right?
 
Robin said:
Then it would depend upon what is meant by "matter". If matter was defined as "whatever exists" then it is trivially true.

If matter is defined as "made of atoms" then it is trivially false (neutron stars for example).

"Made of quarks" doesn't fare much better.

In this forum we have long searched for a working definition of matter and never found one that could gain consensus.

Generally positions like Materialism and Idealism are poorly defined.
Click to expand...

Matter is defined by "conscious" materialists as a medium apart from consciousness that allows it to "arise", to "emerge".

Matter is an "abstraction" proposed by a "conscious reason".

It is impossible to be directly "in contact" with matter: to all extent and consequence, the world is our perceptions.

Once materialists got a "working definition" of matter they propose that their own consciousness (that which conceives, abstracts matter), must be reducible to matter -> in other words, to one of those abstractions of consciousness): and that is a contradiction.

Matter is always defined quantitatively: mass, electric charge, frequency... So, by definition, matter leaves qualitative experiences out —such as the redness of red, falling in love or the experience of listening Muddy Waters playing blues with his slide—.

For materialists it's all about numbers. Quantities are fine to describe the differences between qualities (=measuring the wavelength of red vs. yellow, etc.) but they fail miserably when they try to describe the qualities: for it's own definition of matter lacks the explanatory power about qualities.

The wavelengths of colour red cannot absolutely describe the experience of that color to a blind man.

And that's where materialism completely fails, by replacing qualitative experiences with merely quantitative descriptions that cannot capture qualities.

So, we got that materialists "imagine" a world of matter separated from that very same "consciousness" that it is able to imagine a world of matter separated from that very same "consciousness"... ad inphinitum.

Hence, materialism is fake.
 
devhdb said:
Well, I think that it is self obvious that if materialism is all that exists but materialism cannot explain the mystical experience during a sunset or the sense of awe listening to Muddy Waters then something must be lacking, right?
Click to expand...

It sounds as if you do not know what you are talking about.

After all, there is a valid scientific reason for the various emotions that a person may produce.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I don't. Your request for everyone else to change your mind is a dishonest one; you clearly have no intention of changing your mind.

Dave
Click to expand...

The fact that no answer has satisfied me yet doesn't mean that I'm not open to you all changing my mind.

Construct a logical argument by following the basic rules of rational argumentation and I will evaluate properly.

My best argument is this one.
 
devhdb said:
Well, I think that it is self obvious that if materialism is all that exists but materialism cannot explain the mystical experience during a sunset or the sense of awe listening to Muddy Waters then something must be lacking, right?
Click to expand...
If materialism is all that exists then anything that cannot be explained by it does not exist. Therefore if mystical experiences exist they must be explainable by materialism. Are they?

Yes.
scientists analyzed 116 Vietnam War veterans who experienced brain damage and had mystical experiences, and compared them with 32 combat veterans without brain injuries or neurological disorders..."Often, the veterans said they heard the word of God, or had visions of their family," Grafman said. "Those are common mystical experiences."

Further investigation revealed that damage to a specific area of the brain known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was linked to markedly increased mysticism... when the brain's inhibitory functions are suppressed and then people undergo an experience without a direct explanation, the brain might then settle for supernatural explanations.

"The more we understand the brain, the more we can make fundamental advances and translate findings into clinical settings"
Click to expand...
 
devhdb said:
Explain something "ethereal" (=an emotion) coming from something "material".
Click to expand...

And NO, I'm not talking about measurable neurons firing in certain areas in the brain.

When I mean "explain" I mean "describe" how does it FEEL to be in love, or describe an orgasm to someone who haven't had sex ever before.
 
I have no idea what this materialism means, so I can’t have an opinion on whether it is “fake” or not. However, physics has shown that that our brains consist of atoms and particles: these are all that is needed for seeing red, feeling red, or whatever. If your brain is damaged, you might no longer see or feel red.

As I see it, “redness” is a neuron firing pattern, or something similar. The inability of explaining such a firing pattern to a blind man does not mean that there is more to redness than the emergence of certain firing patterns.
 
devhdb said:
The fact that no answer has satisfied me yet doesn't mean that I'm not open to you all changing my mind.
Click to expand...
Right.

Construct a logical argument by following the basic rules of rational argumentation and I will evaluate properly.
Click to expand...
I predict you will evaluate it improperly and/or make excuses for why you are not satisfied.

It might be more productive to consider why you are not satisfied - the real reason, not 'logical argument following the basic rules of rational argumentation'.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
If materialism is all that exists then anything that cannot be explained by it does not exist. Therefore if mystical experiences exist they must be explainable by materialism. Are they?

Yes.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you don't get it neither. Science can and does explain any measurable event in nature.

But how do you measure pain? I am NOT talking about measuring pain on a scale from 0 to 10 by hitting a patient with a hammer. I am talking about how do you DESCRIBE that pain so that I can have a proper a idea of what you are feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom