The "ultimate substance"

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Again (and I know you will never listen to this) you are simply misrepresenting Materialism.

You are simply taking little snippets of what people say here and there and slotting it into this unshakeable and completely erroneous pre-conception you have about the subject.

How come I never listen, all I have do with the current thread is ask them for explanations about their position. If someone claims "the world is made of matter" and then I state that the hidden assumption is that matter is fundamental... why is this considered a strawman? I simply used their words and expose the ontological commitment below them.

Again, what is materialism? A doctrine? a body of beliefs? I have read dictionaries and encyclopedias and wrote a huge post in which it is clearly the view that everything is material.

And I have yet to see someone explaining what exactly they don't like about encyclopedia definitions. Curiously, for example, if I open the encyclopedia and read about what is the scientific method, nobody would say that it is wrong. If I read the definition about what is Analytic Philosophy I agree in that it is what I do and that I believe in the analysis of language as an important step for philosophy.

So, again, it is curious that materialists now are denying encyclopedia definitions and yet, nobody has given a correct explanation on what, exactly, is materialism.

 

[Piggy]

If someone claims "the world is made of matter" and then I state that the hidden assumption is that matter is fundamental... why is this considered a strawman?

Because you're wrong.

That assumption is not at all necessary, and no one I know of believes it is.

That's why.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry, you lost me here. What is wrong with matter being considered a substance? All of these concepts are just models and descriptions of the world we perceive, so what's the problem?

Good question. I believe that stating what "reality is" beyond our concepts is a futile exercise. I completely agree in that all we have are concepts, descriptions about what we perceive. So, it is a problem of making ontological claims when non is needed.

Put another way, if I were to suddenly eschew the statement "matter is substance" for "matter is a description of reality," how would my metaphysics significantly change?

If I change the meaning of "matter" to suit my needs, am I talking about the same "matter" that other materialists talk about? Well that's exactly what is materialism, the same word is used even when the meanings change constantly.

Why the meanings change? because as we explore the universe newer things defy our naive concepts, and so we need to create new concepts in order to deal with what we find.

DISCLOSURE: NOTHING SUPERNATURAL, NOTHING WOO

I believe the words we use should change too. If we are comfortable talking about quarks as descriptions (clearly some physicists are), why insist in that quarks are matter (or made of matter or whatever)?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Because you're wrong.

That assumption is not at all necessary, and no one I know of believes it is.

That's why.

hmm... when you Piggy, state "the world is made of matter". what are you stating? That it is made of matter? if not, what?

 

[Piggy]

BDZ, it's as I suspected in the previous thread.

Your error comes down to a confused notion about what QM does and doesn't show.

Perhaps you've noticed that you don't see any scientists claiming that QM somehow overturns the material (matter/energy) model of the universe.

Because, after all, the claim that the universe is made of matter isn't a philosophical one, but a scientific one.

This "ultimate substance" business of yours is your invention. You made it up, out of whole cloth. It is not relevant to the question of whether the material model of the universe is valid.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Since every scrap of evidence supports that model, to assert that it's wrong is... well, unsupportable.

Strawman. I have not stated that materialism "is wrong", so you can relax now. Have a bear, whatever . Nothing to argue with you if you believe I'm "challenging" materialism.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Because, after all, the claim that the universe is made of matter isn't a philosophical one, but a scientific one.

This "ultimate substance" business of yours is your invention. You made it up, out of whole cloth. It is not relevant to the question of whether the material model of the universe is valid.

Science says that the universal is made of matter. SCIENCE SAYS... where?

I made it up? you have said it yourself! Forget about the wording "ultimate substance".... if you say that the universe is "made of matter" are you saying that it can be reduced to matter? (for example, biology, or geometry can be reduced to matter because they are material).

Yes or not?

 

[Robin]

How come I never listen, all I have do with the current thread is ask them for explanations about their position. If someone claims "the world is made of matter" and then I state that the hidden assumption is that matter is fundamental... why is this considered a strawman? I simply used their words and expose the ontological commitment below them.

Again, what is materialism? A doctrine? a body of beliefs? I have read dictionaries and encyclopedias and wrote a huge post in which it is clearly the view that everything is material.

It is interesting that you have not attempted to answer, or even acknowledge my challenge in this post:

Now my challenge to you is the same. Name me a Materialist philosopher, major or minor, living or dead, in the past 1,000 or so years that even mentions the subject of the "final substance" (unless it is to pour scorn on the concept as d'Holbach did).

Materialism is quite simply the position put by philosophers who would self-identify as Materialists, from d'Holbach to the Churchlands and beyond.

And I have yet to see someone explaining what exactly they don't like about encyclopedia definitions.

Well you tell me. What didn't you like about the Encyclopedia Britannica definition I gave? Here it is again:

Materialism:

in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

Preferring your own (source not stated).

So, again, it is curious that materialists now are denying encyclopedia definitions and yet, nobody has given a correct explanation on what, exactly, is materialism.

I have, several times. I gave sources of actual Materialist philosophers who have stated these things. But you rejected them. Remember? You rejected my Encyclopedia Britannica definition.

And you refuse to divulge which actual philosophers are supposed to have held this position that you insist represents the real Materialism.

 

[Piggy]

Science says that the universal is made of matter. SCIENCE SAYS... where?

I made it up? you have said it yourself! Forget about the wording "ultimate substance".... if you say that the universe is "made of matter" are you saying that it can be reduced to matter? (for example, biology, or geometry can be reduced to matter because they are material).

Yes or not?

Not.

First of all, if you wish to claim that the material model is not the accepted scientific paradigm, all you have to do is show me an example of legitimate science working in any other framework.

Go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

When I say "the universe is material" or "it is composed of matter", I mean what everyone else means, I mean what Einstein meant, I mean it's composed of hadrons and leptons and other such particles and associated energy states, I mean E=mc^2, I mean there's nothing out there you can point to which does not fit into that model.

And yes, this "final substance" of yours is your invention.

What you're trying to do is to poke a hole in the material model without providing any alternative. Instead, you invent an assumption -- if our world is composed of matter there must be a "final substance" -- which is not part of the material model.

There is nothing in the accepted definition of matter which requires anything like an ultimate substance.

Your argument is totally, 100% bogus.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry, didn't respond to this earlier. Yes, it seems so. I think it best that I bow out then, since I've just been trying to act as a go-between. The harshness of many replies is simply un-called for. I do salute you and Piggy for sticking with it after what you've been called.

Well, I have a thicker skin I guess.... being the one who receives all the attacks lately, why is still this a surprise?

Lets get this straight. Skeptics can treat woos like tripes (Pixy is expert in this) and when I play their game, using their wording, their attitude, I'm harsh and they are the poor guys...

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I'm afraid this point hasn't been answered on either thread.

Isn't your argument based on those 2 points?

1. Objects as we know them are illusions of our senses.

2. At the most fundamental levels, there are no chunks of matter.

1. Since we are playing with terminology here, I'll ask, as a non philosopher, why those of philosophical bent so often use "illusion" as opposed to "synthesis" here? Illusion connotes many things, which includes "that which is not there." It seems to me an internal contradiction to discuss that which is there, however perceived, in terms of "that which is not there."

Yes, I am kicking the piss out of a dead semantic horse.

2. As noted by many in this discussion it depends on what "chunk" means. If energy states aggregate as particles at some point, why does that matter? One answer: some folks like to dance on heads of pins with angels, it's their only chance at something approximating a date.

Therefore, there is no "final substance" or "ultimate substance".

3. As I understand the common model, there is energy that aggregates into substance. That the switchover point isn't nice and tidy, some perfectly grasped step function, is inconvenient for BDZ.

Wasp: Very much enjoyed the post you made when quoting yourself. From here, it seems that the truth, as you described it, meets the "good enough" standard often enough to get reproducible results.

Ah, and as for beer, insert Ben Franklin's aphorism here. I am off to become happy.

DR

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It is interesting that you have not attempted to answer, or even acknowledge my challenge in this post:Now my challenge to you is the same. Name me a Materialist philosopher, major or minor, living or dead, in the past 1,000 or so years that even mentions the subject of the "final substance" (unless it is to pour scorn on the concept as d'Holbach did).

Hmm tell you what, forget about the wording. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE WORDING. What so special, so important, so incredible or outstanding about this words "final substance"? IMO, fighting against me for stating such words seems ridiculous (please don't take it personal, I believe you are perfectly capable of standing good arguments/questions).

I wanted to MAKE CLEAR than when people says "the mind is made of matter" they are implicity accepting an ontological commitment with matter. If someone says, "the universe is made of matter" then the "final substance" of the universe is matter.

For crying out loud... nothing obscure, nothing dark, nothing so special to argue against.

Materialism is quite simply the position put by philosophers who would self-identify as Materialists, from d'Holbach to the Churchlands and beyond.

I hope this serves to illustrate my point. For very long period of time, several thinkers, philosophers and scientists have claimed to be materialists. Yet, materialism itself, have changed considerably.

Of course... the meaning of the word "matter" have also changed, why do materialists continue to use it if its meaning is so... well, unstable?

Well you tell me. What didn't you like about the Encyclopedia Britannica definition I gave? Here it is again:

"Materialism:

in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them."

Preferring your own (source not stated).

First of all, my quote from the Britannica is exactly like yours. It is a blatant lie that I prefer my own, I wrote the definitions of about 12 different sources. Why is the definition from the Britannica the only that is correct? Are the only ones incorrect?

I have, several times. I gave sources of actual Materialist philosophers who have stated these things. But you rejected them. Remember? You rejected my Encyclopedia Britannica definition.

No. I HAVE NOT REJECTED ANYTHING. In case you have noticed it, there are more than 600 posts in my two threads.. a little bit hard to remember every post. I'm sorry if I have missed yours (and others btw).

Why should I take the word of materialists philosophers? I don't know if you have noticed... but there are no authorities with the ultimate knowledge. All they are doing is stating their opinions, like we do in here all the time.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is no truth 'out there'. Truth is a language issue, and there is no langauge 'out there' (except in the sense that we are all part of 'out there'). The world exists. We are stuck with descriptions of the world. Truth refers to the validity of a description, its accuracy, if you will, as it relates to 'out there'.

So, to discuss anything as true out there in the world is a bit silly since 'truth' only has meaning in a language community with shared assumptions. Truth does not exist independent of human minds (maybe Heidegger's dasein is better here, since there are likely many non-human minds which also 'create truth').

So, when we use a word like 'matter' to refer to something 'out there', we merely employ our usual ability to describe the world. We can only speak of truth not in knowing 'what is out there', but in our description of what is out there. Since 'matter' is only a word we use to denote our way of describing what is out there, I don't see all that much problem with it -- except for the **** poured on it by philosophers.

Wise words. It is refreshing to see that someone understands. Sure, I might be pushing it to hard by stating that some materialists are "naives", that doesn't get me friends, but it is true.

To make things more clear. My issue with the word "matter" is that, historically, it has been changed to fit the new data. It was solid, used to be clearly localized in space, used to have this final constituents (atoms), used to be different from energy (heck there was no useful concept for energy for a long time)... and so on.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Truth, to Rorty, doesn't really refer to the validity of a description in the sense that we can think in terms of the correspondence model of truth. Truth really refers to how successful a description is -- how useful it is for us in navigating the world. And if we want to get down to brass tacks in understanding this stuff from an evolutionary perspective, all that matters in our descriptions is what works

This time I added emphasis on how Rorty and I are holding exactly the same position. At least at this level.

I am also struck by how this and many other discussions (and I am beginning to see that this is exactly BDZ's point, which is very clever of him) resemble the old fight in philosophy between different camps that have assumed new names as time moves on.

Well, thanks for noticing it. In a "Rortyan" sense, most (if not all) the epistemological problems we face are the result of believing that our models are a replica of "what is out there". This is, that our maps resemble the territory. I have stated over and over that I believe this is a mistake. All we have are the lectures on the indicators, functional descriptions and working models, but never explanations.

I'm truly sorry in that this kind of discussions are impossible to held in here. Sometimes, JREF seems to be a discount market, not a civilized forum.

The latest incarnation is between those who view science as revelation of the truth of the world and the camp that views science as one more group using a different language game. The first view holds, much like Scully and Mulder, that the truth is out there (but lies are in your head, thank you Terry Pratchett), and that science reveals it. The opposing camp holds that science just invents descriptions of the world and so creates its own truths.

Exactly right! (IMO of course)

The problem arises in descriptions of these opposing views when we start to think that 'creating truth' means that there is no reality and we only invent it whole-cloth from nothing. Some idealists seem to think this is the case, to which the 'realist' replies, "Then create a new reality after jumping out of a 20 story building.".

And this is why I have proposed to different models that deal with this notion. Clearly reality is objective, independent of us. I think there is no way to argue about that.

The sort of middle ground, which neo-pragmatists like Rorty hold, is the idea that language is our description of the world-as-it-is (with the idea of 'world-as-it-is' being essentially an empty concept since we can't actually get to it) and that different vocabularies allow more useful descriptions. Most of the fights around here consist in clashes between different vocabulary systems -- "What, you meant X when you used the word 'snarflemangus'? Well, that explains it!" If we could take a step back and look at the arguments for what they are, perhaps we wouldn't get so invested in our own vocabulary system. I can certainly understand many folks reluctance to do so, since there are some really wacky language games out there -- just hearing how fundamentalists talk gives me the willies.

This is exactly why I'm so incisive with the precise wording most materialists use. In a way, I'm doing them a favor! giving them new tools to fight wooism! But I'm hated anyway...

 

[Robin]

Why should I take the word of materialists philosophers? I don't know if you have noticed... but there are no authorities with the ultimate knowledge. All they are doing is stating their opinions, like we do in here all the time.

You are willing to take the word of dictionaries and encyclopedias about what materialist philosophers are saying. But you are asking why you should take the word of materialist philosophers themselves about what they themselves are saying!

Don't you think they know what their own argument is?

What else does materialism mean than the philosophic argument put forward by materialist philosophers?

I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

If I wanted to characterise your argument, what should I refer to? Should I take Piggy's representation of your argument? Or D'roks representation of your argument? Or Volatile's representation of your argument?

Or should I go to your own words?

hope this serves to illustrate my point. For very long period of time, several thinkers, philosophers and scientists have claimed to be materialists. Yet, materialism itself, have changed considerably.

Of course... the meaning of the word "matter" have also changed, why do materialists continue to use it if its meaning is so... well, unstable?

It is not unstable at all. The Churchlands are saying the same basic thing that d'Holbach and Diderot said. Like every branch of philosophy it has developed across the centuries.

This is exactly why I'm so incisive with the precise wording most materialists use.

But again you are unwilling to state which materialists you mean when you say "most materialists".

Of course... the meaning of the word "matter" have also changed, why do materialists continue to use it if its meaning is so... well, unstable?

I have pointed out until I am blue in the face, Materialist philosopher don't use it. How many times and in how many ways do I have to point this out before you will acknowledge it?

To make things more clear. My issue with the word "matter" is that, historically, it has been changed to fit the new data. It was solid, used to be clearly localized in space, used to have this final constituents (atoms), used to be different from energy (heck there was no useful concept for energy for a long time)... and so on.

Maybe about 1600 years ago. I have already pointed out what, for example, d'Holbach said about matter.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are willing to take the word of dictionaries and encyclopedias about what materialist philosophers are saying. But you are asking why you should take the word of materialist philosophers themselves about what they themselves are saying!

Don't you think they know what their own argument is?

What else does materialism mean than the philosophic argument put forward by materialist philosophers?

I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

The problem is, the moment he accepts that materialism is what materialists say it is, his argument falls flat. So he has to maintain the strawman, no matter how absurd the situation becomes.

Maybe about 1600 years ago. I have already pointed out what, for example, d'Holbach said about matter.

Note that his complaint is that materialist understanding changes to fit the facts. He apparently prefers the reverse approach.

 

[volatile]

It doesn't matter.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why is the definition from the Britannica the only that is correct? Are the only ones incorrect?

You are willing to take the word of dictionaries and encyclopedias about what materialist philosophers are saying. But you are asking why you should take the word of materialist philosophers themselves about what they themselves are saying!

I’m afraid I have to agree with what Robin seems to imply here.

Dictionary writers are not “lawgivers” (as in authorities on what words mean), they are more like historians. The task for the dictionary writer is to record what various words have meant to authors in the distant or immediate past (see Hayakawa 1990). Obviously the dictionary definition of a word is then dependent on which authors are used as sources, as well as how well the dictionary writer manages to reformulate those meanings (in as short descriptions as possible, which is difficult and often leads to problems). Thus, the dictionary is never the ultimate source for the definition; it’s an unfinished representation of how words have been used in the past. This does no mean that all definitions are equal; it merely illustrates the many different instances and contexts where such words have been found to be used.

Hence, in regards to materialism, I suppose it’s better to take a look what the philosophers say about materialism, how they use the term, and in what context. The dispute can not be solved by cherry picking dictionary definitions, regardless of how many dictionaries one cites.

To make things more clear. My issue with the word "matter" is that, historically, it has been changed to fit the new data. It was solid, used to be clearly localized in space, used to have this final constituents (atoms), used to be different from energy (heck there was no useful concept for energy for a long time)... and so on.

Almost all words change over time and this is also how dictionaries change; it’s always work in progress. That’s why your issue with materialism is somewhat naive. You simply don’t like words to change meaning, but that’s reality, your dislike is really of no consequence here. Materialism works well in philosophy and science because of its changing nature. Moreover, pragmatically, we cannot possibly come up with new words all the time, especially since the rate of discovery is so fast – communication would break down. When you take issues with materialism, I suggest you at least find out what the current meaning seems to suggest materialism is about. Or the faster approach: Look at Robin’s definition, it seem to be a rather good one. Criticizing naive materialism is, in my opinion, as naive as the subject under criticism (it’s already dead, it will not rise and defend itself, no matter how much you keep on kicking it).

 

[Mobyseven]

It doesn't matter.

Never mind then.

 

[Piggy]

Strawman. I have not stated that materialism "is wrong", so you can relax now. Have a bear, whatever . Nothing to argue with you if you believe I'm "challenging" materialism.

Ok, that's just too much for me to take.

I can handle just about any honest debate, but not a dishonest one.

Adios.