The "ultimate substance"

[Tricky]

The question is for hardcore materialists who do speak as if this "ultimate substance" was the goal of scientific endeavors. At every opportunity they state that "everything is material", that "there are no immaterial things", that the mind "is made of matter" and such kind of statements.

Matter is defined as what things are made of and it has very specific properties. You can define it with a different word if you like, but it's going to have the same properties as matter, so your point would be moot. "The mind" and "God" have much less specific defintions, and while some "philosophers" might like to claim that they are the "ultimate substance", I don't think E=(God)c^2 is going to make it into many textbooks.

And although I consider myself a "hardcore materialist" I have never overly concerned myself with the search for the "ultimate substance". I'm going to have to start reading the flyers more carefully.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What difference does it make what word we use for it?

'Stuff' is as good as any other. We could call it Bwana on alternate Fridays.

Agreed. But I keep reading claims about "it is made of matter". That's why I ask.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Can we skip to the part where he blows up his basement trying to create the philosopher's stone?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Matter is defined as what things are made of and it has very specific properties. You can define it with a different word if you like, but it's going to have the same properties as matter, so your point would be moot. "The mind" and "God" have much less specific defintions, and while some "philosophers" might like to claim that they are the "ultimate substance", I don't thing E=(God)c^2 is going to make it into many textbooks.

And although I consider myself a "hardcore materialist" I have never overly concerned myself with the search for the "ultimate substance". I'm going to have to start reading the flyers more carefully.

If you dig far enough down into matter, you find energy states and uncertainty. So, ultimately, we dont know.

Cool with that. I operate at a scale where ice and heat removal chill my beer, and that is something that matters.

To Wasp: Can Cosmic Debris keep alternate Thursdays? I'd hate to have a conflict between stuff and debris. Messy.

DR

 

[Tricky]

If you dig far enough down into matter, you find energy states and uncertainty. So, ultimately, we dont know.

Of course. We do eventually reach the limit of what we are capable of knowing. Sort of like if a child replys "why?" to each answer you give them, you will eventually reach a point where you say "shut up" or "because I say so".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you skip the "appeal to an emotion" pots and argue or claim something of interest? Otherwise, you can always let go the thread. No harm done.

I'm asking questions, stating why I believe what I believe and I expect an honest answer. If the thread starts to derail with colorful remarks is of no use for anyone.

 

[Vox Humana]

The question is for hardcore materialists who do speak as if this "ultimate substance" was the goal of scientific endeavors. At every opportunity they state that "everything is material", that "there are no immaterial things", that the mind "is made of matter" and such kind of statements.

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.

Why do you disagree with these statements?

 

[JoeEllison]

Of course. We do eventually reach the limit of what we are capable of knowing. Sort of like if a child replys "why?" to each answer you give them, you will eventually reach a point where you say "shut up" or "because I say so".

And, if that "child" is Bodhi Dharma Zen, saying "shut up" to him will somehow validate his dishonest rhetorical games.

 

[JoeEllison]

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.

Why do you disagree with these statements?

That's the question, isn't it?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.

Why do you disagree with these statements?

Did I said I disagree? What are they predicting? In which way they describe? For example, the statement "the mind is made of matter" predict something? It is indeed a descriptive phrase, but if you analyze it what is it stating?

Implications are obvious, we know what the mind is and, what it is made of, and the nature of this substance. Do we?

Now, I do disagree with the need of stating "X is Y". Is it a valuable assertion?

All we need are statements of the form "X does Y in this circumstances but not those". This is a valuable assertion.

 

[Piggy]

I'll repeat what I said on the thread that this is split from:

There is no need to know the "final substance" in order to understand that "materialism", as you call it, is the only legitimate world view left standing among the contenders.

If we begin with what we observe, rather than beginning with philosophy, and follow those observations and deductions from them, we never encounter anything but a "materialist" reality.

Sure, other theories have been floated, but they've all lost every battle they've ever fought.

And nothing in relativity or QM or even string theory challenges or contradicts that.

 

[Vox Humana]

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.

Why do you disagree with these statements?

Did I said I disagree?

Perhaps I've misunderstood; I inferred from your prior postings that you find fault with these statements. Do you, or do you not agree with these statements? If you disagree, why?

What are they predicting? In which way they describe? For example, the statement "the mind is made of matter" predict something? It is indeed a descriptive phrase, but if you analyze it what is it stating?

It is stating, among other things, that there is no ghost in the machine. It informs us that the workings of the mind are purely physical, and so to best understand and treat the mind one should investigate the underlying physical mechanisms by which it operates.

Implications are obvious, we know what the mind is and, what it is made of, and the nature of this substance. Do we?

These sound like the words of a strawman. Who has ever said anything of the sort? To say that the mind is composed of matter is in no way saying that we have a complete understanding of how the mind operates, or the exact nature of the matter of which it is composed. As knowledge grows we better understand your "final substance", but I sincerely doubt that anyone imagines that we will ever perfectly apprehend it.

Now, I do disagree with the need of stating "X is Y". Is it a valuable assertion?

All we need are statements of the form "X does Y in this circumstances but not those". This is a valuable assertion.

I think the implication of stating "X is Y", in a discussion such as this, is that Y stands for some set of properties and behaviors that are usefully grouped together, and that all are exhibited by X. In essence, the two statements are equivalent for the purpose of discussion.

 

[maatorc]

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.
Why do you disagree with these statements?

- What you can perceive with your material senses is material.
- Your material senses are limited in their range of perception, and there are conditions in nature other than what you can materially perceive.
- That is an unverifiable presumption of reductionist scientism.

 

[JoeEllison]

- Your material senses are limited in their range of perception, and there are conditions in nature other than what you can materially perceive.

The first half of this statement makes the second half of your statement an unfounded, useless assertion. We keep telling you, and you keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again. Do you enjoy appearing ignorant of your own mistakes?

 

[Apathia]

Why do we have to go there, in search of the Ultimate? It's a philosophical fiction. I hear the Theists snickering in the other room. They want to draw reality apart into the world of experience versus the world of the Ultimate.
They have you halfway to their camp, when you must insist upon a metaphysical/ontological reality apart from the empirical.

 

[Vox Humana]

• everything is material
• there are no immaterial things
• the mind is made of matter

I think these statements reliably describe and predict the world around us. I'm not aware of any exceptions that would invalidate them.

Why do you disagree with these statements?

- What you can perceive with your material senses is material.

No disagreement.

- Your material senses are limited in their range of perception, and there are conditions in nature other than what you can materially perceive.

Such as?

- That is an unverifiable presumption of reductionist scientism.

Perhaps, but it is falisfiable. To my (admittedly limited) understanding, all attempts to demonstrate a non-material component of the mind have failed, while our understanding of the material nature of the mind continues to grow.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps, but it is falisfiable. To my (admittedly limited) understanding, all attempts to demonstrate a non-material component of the mind have failed, while our understanding of the material nature of the mind continues to grow.

And that's what it all comes down to, ladies and gentlemen.

On the parent thread, BDZ dodged every mention of this simple fact.

And all the snake-oil peddlers around here do the same.

Here it is, plain and simple.

There is no non-material theory of the world, or any part of the world, that has any basis in fact.

There is no case -- not one -- of any non-material theory going head to head with a material theory of ANYTHING and coming out the winner.

Every single tangible advance in our understanding of the world has come from the material framework.

Every one.

Without exception.

All the non-material philosophies (and religions) remain right where they've been since before the dawn of history -- sitting around scratching their heads, asking questions, creating needless complications for themselves, and contributing not one whit to any sort of progress.

Which is to say... they've all failed.

In spades.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

What is "matter" after all?

Possibly a reflection of pure geometry at some level.

 

[JoeEllison]

Possibly a reflection of pure geometry at some level.

Yeah, and "possibly" the imaginings of a 12th dimensional Styrofoam packing peanut. Once you start wasting your time with "possibly" as anything more than something to pass the time while drunk or high, you're down the rabbit hole and no one can save you.

 

[PixyMisa]

As for myself, whatever it is (that "final constituent"), what matters is that it has some properties, we can observe, test and describe such properties (to an extent) and I believe this where we need to stop.

That's materialism.

Maybe some of you would not feel so outraged if I simply state that I'm an "energist"? (and I'm sure physicists would have zero problems with it as, at least from last century, matter and energy are interchangeable)

That's also materialism.

I have stated constantly that, for me, quarks are ways of description, not "things".

That's incoherent. If you are going to present what is nothing more that nit-picking of language that is well-understood by the people who use it, you could at least do us the service of being precise in your usage.

Quarks are things.

The term "quark" is a label we attach to a particular set of observable behaviours.

Maybe those of you who are materialists would say that quarks are "made of matter", and thats your choice.

Quarks aren't made of matter. Quarks are matter. (But the converse doesn't apply.)

I honestly don't see the point.

I don't see the point of any of your posts. I can understand the statements you are making, even though those statements are often poorly presented. I don't understand why you think this is of any significance, though.