Why the bias against materialism?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen this source mentioned from you before and thought I would make a caveat statement. There are other books on consciousness you can read as well and they have very different takes. Just because one book has an explanation that is consistent with your world view does NOT mean the issue is resolved. I would recommend you read the works of other scientists/philosophers and get a more consensus view. You'll find that the problem of consciousness is far from resolved.

No conclusions can be made from this at all. I just wanted to straighten out the facts.

And I thank you for that. I didn't mean to imply that the issue was resolved, nor even that Dennett was necessarily "right". Merely that he gives a more detailed explanation of that which I only generalized in my post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't it ok if we all disagree? Or should materialists subscribe to a dogma of some sort?

Materialism is one "dogma". The fact that people have branched off of the original "dogma" to satisfy their own personal opinions doesn't change that fact in the slightest. The same thing has happened with Christianity. If we are to accept that the Bible is true, then there was only one Jesus, and he only taught one "dogma". However, I walk down the main street in my town, and I see the "Seventh-Day Baptist" church and the "Christian Reformed" church right next to each other - each believing in their own interpretations of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this.

I know this was directed at Zero, but I feel compelled to inform you that this is a (more plain-and-simple, I grant you) version of exactly what a Solipsist (for example) believes. They don't believe that there is anything that can be rationally percieved, since nothing else exists anyway. There is only the "Primal Singularity" of their "minds".

I do not approve of Zero's modified version (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be rationally perceived to exist) anyway. I prefer the original (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be shown to exist, separate of the mind of the observer"). I see nothing logically wrong with it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

Ah ha! Finally, someone brings it up!

I ask you, Royce, do you think that Hellen Keller ever formed a picture in her mind? After all, the mind is immaterial, and it can (according to you) picture things without having perceived them through the physical senses first.

I have been reading Helen Keller's autobiography, and I must inform you that Daniel Dennett (and the rest of the materialist philosophers of the mind) were correct: a person who has never had sensory experience of a visible object, can never form a "mental picture". She was not even really conscious, until she was taught language, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Fliption
The other self proclaimed materialists posting in this thread seem to have grasped this and are only claiming that matter is primary. Not that it is all that exists. That's probably because they're using Heusdens more effective definition. Only you and Mentat have not done this.

I posted the same definition of matter (the one from Lenin) in one of LG's threads long ago. Perhaps you recall that, I don't know.

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. You've obviously not played Doom3.

The state of my hardware always lags software.

Originally posted by Fliption
…But what about sensations? I can have sensations as a result of a dream too but dreams aren't matter. Should sensations be more specific?

You mean by this to show how the immaterial can affect the material, am I correct?
I think the pat answer would be that material was responsible for the dreaming in the first place, and not the other way around. Certainly, body chemistry can alter the way a person thinks and feels and so the physical would seem to have a recognizable ‘control’ (that may be a poor choice a word to use) over the immaterial. I may be missing your point, but an example of what I’m thinking about concerns a dream I once had were I was being poked or stabbed within my dream. When I finally awakened, my body was pressing up against something sharp that didn’t belong in the bed. I don’t know how the object got there, but it was something I usually carried around with me, and so I ‘figured’ that I had simply laid it on the bed by mistake. I viewed this as my body being able to send signals to my brain, which in turn was altering my dream, perhaps trying to make sense of its discomfort by waking me up and/or by creating an image of someone in the dream poking me.

 

[Royce]

Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.
Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.
You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.

It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Also, as I said before, if the plant were conscious of it's "needs" then it would surely avoid "sticking it's head out" when a threat presents itself (the animal that wishes to eat it).

Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.

I think you are confusing "conscious" with "reactive". In truth, what is good about "consciousness" is that it can also be proactive, and it can even choose inaction, even when this makes it temporarily more difficult (it would not be following the "path of least resistance", because it chose not to).

You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

I use the term "dogma" because Zero used it. However, you are correct that I am posting that "materialism" has one, original, meaning. All "branches" therefrom are fine for each person, but can be misleading in a debate about actual "materialism".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, Fliption, that is exactly what certain idealists (particularly Solipsists) claim. After all, if some things exist only in the mind, then how is it possible to "show them to exists" before others? How, for that matter, can you show anything to "someone else" if even that person must exist in your own mind?

Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Not necessarily useless. As I said, if it "can be shown to exist" to another person, then not only does that "other person" have to exist separate of the mind of the one "showing", but also the thing being "shown" must exist separate of both of them.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

Then Heusdens is wrong on this one point (though I very much appreciate most of what he's posted, that I've read), since the very "feeling" of love can be explained as a hormonal and mental process. There needn't be any "inexplicable hidden variables" added.

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

I once saw a comic strip that showed two men by a blackboard. The one man had just finished writing the complex-looking equation on the blackboard, and the other was examining the equation. Well, the first step of the equation was pure mathematics, then he puts (in a sort of cloudish "bubble" (much like a "though bubble")) "Then A Miracle Occurs", and then the final step is also in mathematics. So, the other man says, "you should be a little more specific on that second step".


Anyway, the point is that you can say "the gunman is about to kill my mother, then because I feel love for her, I jump in front of the gunman. You need to be a little more specific about that "second step".

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts. Once we have these definitions straight then we can pick a side based on our views of what is and what isn't. But you don't do this in the definitions themselves. Zero's definition has the conclusion built right into it.

Well, if we can all decide on an appropriate definition of materialism, then we can (more easily) resolve the different "sects" of materialism that are held by the different posters.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 textbook and educate themselves.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Are you suggesting that there is a "point to humans having brains"? Seems like you're implying that. I thought that the human brain was just a chance mutation that happened to be successful. Why should it need a point that can then be used to argue against what a plant is capable of? This should be interesting.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Yes it is, and that was part of my point. If I say that a purple cow exists, I am telling the truth, because I am an Idealist, and thus anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists. However, I cannot show this to exist.

However, if I say that a purple cow doesn't exist, I am telling the truth because I am a Materialist, and thus only things that be shown to exist really exist.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

I'll try to do that tomorrow (have very little time left now).

Anyway, if I can point at something, then I can show that it exists. If I can mathematically describe something, then I have shown that it exists. What is lacking here?

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

No, a definition is not just based on human consensus, the definition has existed as long as that which it defines, it is the word that was later assigned by humans. Thus, if I say (for example) "theory", I have used a word to describe the existent-independent-of-a-word-to-desribe-it thing that can be described as an hypothesis with a large measure of evidence to support it.

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts.

Fine, but "love" is a word, used to describe something that was originally believed to be non-physical (and emotion was not always considered a physical process, and, apparently, still isn't considered that by some people), so we are re-defining it, using scientific consensus as our basis.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 textbook and educate themselves.

True, and I think all of us (excluding no one) have been guilty of this from time to time.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it is, and that was part of my point. If I say that a purple cow exists, I am telling the truth, because I am an Idealist, and thus anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists. However, I cannot show this to exist.

However, if I say that a purple cow doesn't exist, I am telling the truth because I am a Materialist, and thus only things that be shown to exist really exist.

The problem with this mentat is that now you have decided the whole materialism/idealism debate by simply defining away the opposing view. It would be much easier if you just took this phrase that you used... "anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists" and build a definition around this. Heusdens definition is very similar. For example, you can say that immaterial things are things created by the mind. Now there is a clear distinction between material and non-material. As opposed to "that which exists" or "can be shown to exists". Immaterial things DO exists. Including purple cows!They just exists in a mind. Notice that your conclusion of nonmaterial things not existing is built right into your definition whereas it isn't built into Heusdens. Your definition is pointless because it denies that there is even an opposing philosophical view and builds the materialistic conclusion right into the assumptions/definitions.

I'll try to do that tomorrow (have very little time left now).

Anyway, if I can point at something, then I can show that it exists. If I can mathematically describe something, then I have shown that it exists. What is lacking here?

I can point to someone's lack of knowledge but not with my finger. Sloppy semantics. It just begs more questions.

No, a definition is not just based on human consensus, the definition has existed as long as that which it defines, it is the word that was later assigned by humans. Thus, if I say (for example) "theory", I have used a word to describe the existent-independent-of-a-word-to-desribe-it thing that can be described as an hypothesis with a large measure of evidence to support it.

Yes, a definition is based on human invention. You deny this and then you procede to explain how it is true. Heh

Fine, but "love" is a word, used to describe something that was originally believed to be non-physical (and emotion was not always considered a physical process, and, apparently, still isn't considered that by some people), so we are re-defining it, using scientific consensus as our basis.

Mentat, you keep ignoring the fact that I mention about holistic effects of processes. These are caused by physical processes but they are a distinctive property from it. It is only practical that we humans invent a word to describe the holistic effect. Your scientific reductionism is a bit extreme if you're going to claim that a car is no different than a box full of unassembled automobile parts.

True, and I think all of us (excluding no one) have been guilty of this from time to time.

I agree that all of you have done this from time to time.

But some people NEVER strive to accomplish what you have proposed. I'm not going to pretend that everyone contributes in a productive manner just because everyone messes up occasionally.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's because of the way you are defining it.

Ignore me if you want but this is a philosophy topic that has been debated for centuries. At this basic level it is black and white. Greying it out so you don't have to deal with the issue is all that's going on here. I've told you before that it has nothing to do with what is actually true but you keep going there as if it means anything. Stop pointing out my posting habits and deal with this issue. YOU asked the question and I'm answering it for you.

Well, I'm never going to agree that things are black and white, so you can give it up...sorry, but I am too open-minded for that!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I'm never going to agree that things are black and white, so you can give it up...sorry, but I am too open-minded for that!

I'm not talking about life or reality, Zero. I'm talking about the distinction in views as taught in a 101 textbook.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
The problem with this mentat is that now you have decided the whole materialism/idealism debate by simply defining away the opposing view. It would be much easier if you just took this phrase that you used... "anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists" and build a definition around this. Heusdens definition is very similar. For example, you can say that immaterial things are things created by the mind. Now there is a clear distinction between material and non-material. As opposed to "that which exists" or "can be shown to exists". Immaterial things DO exists. Including purple cows!They just exists in a mind.

This sounds very much like Cartesian Dualism. The purple cow never actually existed, nor did I ever actually form a "picture" in my mind, it was a process that occurred in many parts of the brain. Now, I don't mean to state this as absolute fact, but there are serious flaws with the alternative. Let me give an example:

Let's say that the purple cow actually "appeared" at some point in my brain, then who's seeing it? IOW, how can I see the cow, unless I have "eyes" inside my head, in which case (after having applied the explanation that a "picture" is formed for the "mind's eye" to see) you will have an infinite regress - of "minds' eyes" sending images to their center of consciousness, which then views it with it's mind's eye, and so on, ad infinitum.

Notice that your conclusion of nonmaterial things not existing is built right into your definition whereas it isn't built into Heusdens. Your definition is pointless because it denies that there is even an opposing philosophical view and builds the materialistic conclusion right into the assumptions/definitions.

I suppose that may be true, however I see the same problem with your definiton: "anything, that I can conceive of in my mind, exists". Built into this is the Cartesian idea that there is an inner mind (a mind smaller than the brain, that is), this requires that the "inner mind" be immaterial. But if something immaterial is implied, then the idea is inherently idealistic.

I can point to someone's lack of knowledge but not with my finger. Sloppy semantics. It just begs more questions.

That's the point, you cannot point to one's lack of knowledge, you can only "point to" instances in which this lack has become obvious.

Yes, a definition is based on human invention. You deny this and then you procede to explain how it is true. Heh

Apparently you missed the entire point of my illustration, since I was showing that the word was assigned by humans, to a definition that already existed.

Mentat, you keep ignoring the fact that I mention about holistic effects of processes. These are caused by physical processes but they are a distinctive property from it. It is only practical that we humans invent a word to describe the holistic effect. Your scientific reductionism is a bit extreme if you're going to claim that a car is no different than a box full of unassembled automobile parts.

But the car is a physical thing. Love (which is the example that we have been using) is also physical (in the same sense that "running" is physical). Love is an interaction - a physical one. Think of another example, if you want.

Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain.

What would you say about the radio waves that we receive over the radio? Are these part of the radio itself or, are they "picked up" separately? Now who's to say that we aren't "tapped into" some other (spiritual) source than our five senses? Isn't that why they call it the "sixth sense?"

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would you say about the radio waves that we receive over the radio? Now who's to say that we aren't "tapped into" some other (spiritual) source than our five senses? Isn't that why they call it the "sixth sense?"

Radio Waves are physical propogations of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. They don't require any extra senses, since they are physical anyway.

However, let's take that point a little further, what would we do with a "sixth sense"? Now we know that our five known sense are physical, and thus, in order for us to have a "sixth", it must also by physical. Thus, we cannot "pick up" metaphysical "frequencies" (so to speak), because all of our senses are physical.

More importantly, if we had a sense that wasn't physical, then we couldn't do anything with it, because our brain (the organ that processes all of the information given to it by the senses) is physical, and there is no "intermediary" form (between physical and metaphysical) that the information can take - no "translator" between the metaphysical information (taken in by the "sixth sense") and the physical brain.

 

[Royce]

Mentat from what I'm reading and my understanding of it you are on one hand basing everything you say on the belief that if something does not have physical objectivity it does not exist. On the otherhand you talk of definitions and mental pictures or concepts which are subjective. To be consistant you would have to conclude that those mental things do not exist.
You continue to say that the definition, a purely subjective thing existed before the words, subjective symbols of mental concepts. Thus you contradict yourself or at least your postion again.
You maintain that consciousness is a product of the brain and thought merely electrochemical activity of the neurons. This is not proven but merely an assumption.
You also imply that intelligence is a necessary property for consciousness to exist. This is purely dependent on your definition of consciousness. Awareness in consciousness no matter how primative or limited. Your example of Helen Keller, saying that she was not conscious because she had no sensory imput is pure hogwash and you know it.
Even if consciousness and thought are products of the brain they are different from the brain and exist in reality. They can be measured and can effect material objects and thoughts transferred from one to another just as I am doing now. Thus by your own inconsistent reasoning both the objective material and subjective immaterial exist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat from what I'm reading and my understanding of it you are on one hand basing everything you say on the belief that if something does not have physical objectivity it does not exist.

Which is the materialist viewpoint, that I have chosen to adopt for the purpose of this thread.

On the otherhand you talk of definitions and mental pictures or concepts which are subjective. To be consistant you would have to conclude that those mental things do not exist.

I did. Read my response to Fliption, about the "purple cow".

You continue to say that the definition, a purely subjective thing existed before the words, subjective symbols of mental concepts. Thus you contradict yourself or at least your postion again.

Not so. When I say that the definition existed, what I mean is that the thing (whatever it is) already was what it was. A chair has always been a piece of furniture that is usefull for sitting on (not a formal definition, I know), but the word "chair" was later assigned to it (along with the words that I've used in the definition).

You maintain that consciousness is a product of the brain and thought merely electrochemical activity of the neurons. This is not proven but merely an assumption.

What alternative do you suggest?

You also imply that intelligence is a necessary property for consciousness to exist. This is purely dependent on your definition of consciousness. Awareness in consciousness no matter how primative or limited. Your example of Helen Keller, saying that she was not conscious because she had no sensory imput is pure hogwash and you know it.

Have you ever read her autobiography? You can go ahead and look it up, but I have read for myself that she has no conscious memory of life before language (and she was (I think) over 7 years old before she was taught language).

Anyway, that just means that language is necessary for the level of consciousness that a human experiences, not that intelligence is at all necessary for rudimentary consciousness.

Even if consciousness and thought are products of the brain they are different from the brain and exist in reality. They can be measured and can effect material objects and thoughts transferred from one to another just as I am doing now. Thus by your own inconsistent reasoning both the objective material and subjective immaterial exist.

Actually, the passing of memes from one to another is not at all an immaterial process. After all, if I didn't have the (physical) apparatus of a computer, I would never have been able to attain this information. If I didn't have the (physical) apparatus of eyes, I would still never be able to attain this information. Last, but not least, if I didn't have the different (physical) places in my brain that are used for processing visual stimulus, I would still not be able to attain this information.

The materialist holds that, in point of actual fact, it wasn't information until my brain processed the stimulus. After all, there is nothing "special" about the beams of light that are leaving my monitor screen, and entering my retina.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Radio Waves are physical propogations of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. They don't require any extra senses, since they are physical anyway.

Ever trip over a radio wave? Sorry, you can credit Fliption for that one!

However, let's take that point a little further, what would we do with a "sixth sense"? Now we know that our five known sense are physical, and thus, in order for us to have a "sixth", it must also by physical. Thus, we cannot "pick up" metaphysical "frequencies" (so to speak), because all of our senses are physical.

And yet there are people who claim to have this ability all the time.

More importantly, if we had a sense that wasn't physical, then we couldn't do anything with it, because our brain (the organ that processes all of the information given to it by the senses) is physical, and there is no "intermediary" form (between physical and metaphysical) that the information can take - no "translator" between the metaphysical information (taken in by the "sixth sense") and the physical brain.

Has anyone ever been able to peer into the world of electro-magnetic energy? It's entirely invisible with exception to sight and sound, and yet who's to say that this isn't the very metaphysical realm we're talking about? And I agree, you can't have a physical world on the one hand, and a metaphysical world on the other, without something which is common in between.

Whereas just as everything in this Universe vibrates, while sending out its own little code, could it be that this "realm of information" is the very "spiritual realm" as well? Or, perhaps there's some other possibility, but I would have to concede it was something along these lines.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever trip over a radio wave? Sorry, you can credit Fliption for that one!

Very funny. I'm sure that you know full well the difference between physical and material, so it is probably completely obvious to you that you don't need to be able to "trip over" something (figuratively speaking) to know that it's physical.

And yet there are people who claim to have this ability all the time.

Really? What does this ability do for them specifically?

Has anyone ever been able to peer into the world of electro-magnetic energy? It's entirely invisible with exception to sight and sound, and yet who's to say that this isn't the very metaphysical realm we're talking about?

Well, we know that electron exist, if that's what you're asking. Electrons are physical, and they - along with photons - are responsible for electromagnetic phenomena, so there isn't much room for a metaphysical interpretation.

And I agree, you can't have a physical world on the one hand, and a metaphysical world on the other, without something which is common in between.

Yes, and that intermediary cannot exist, since anything that is not physical is metaphysical (by the very nature of the word "metaphysical").

Whereas just as everything in this Universe vibrates, while sending out its own little code, could it be that this "realm of information" is the very "spiritual realm" as well? Or, perhaps there's some other possibility, but I would have to concede it was something along these lines.

There is no "realm of information". If inormation could exist in a form outside of the processes of the brain, what would be the purpose of the brain?

When I see that the C.D. case beside me is "red", I am not observing an inherent property of the case or of the beams of light that entered my retina after reflecting off the case. I am only referring to the information which exists only in my brain. In the brain of a bee (for example) the color would be rather different (I think they see ultraviolet frequencies of light), and in the brain of a dog there would be no color at all (I think they are color-blind, please correct me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't mean that they've failed to process some information that is intrinsic of the beam of light itself, it just means that they produced (note the term "produced") different information from the same physical stimulus.

 

[Royce]

Okay Mentat given that radio waves are physical and thought is product of the physical brain. The brain when unconscious still produce electrochemical processes and brainwaves. Radio waves can contain random static or information just as brainwave can contain rando neuron firing or information. While I will allow for the sake of this discussion your claim that both radio and brainwaves are physical and objective in origin, the information, intelligence or knowledge that they contain and transfer from point to point is subjective as all knowledge and intelligence is subjective by definition.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Okay Mentat given that radio waves are physical and thought is product of the physical brain. The brain when unconscious still produce electrochemical processes and brainwaves. Radio waves can contain random static or information just as brainwave can contain rando neuron firing or information. While I will allow for the sake of this discussion your claim that both radio and brainwaves are physical and objective in origin, the information, intelligence or knowledge that they contain and transfer from point to point is subjective as all knowledge and intelligence is subjective by definition.

Not at all, dear friend. The information is a stimulation of the different processing points in the brain.

If "information" itself existed separate of processed physical stimulus in the brain, then there would be no clear reason for a brain. There would be no clear reason why a plant isn't as conscious as a human.

What I'm saying is that (according to the materialist PoV) "information" itself is not something subjective that is interpreted by the brain, but something objective that is produced by many stimulations of many different parts of a conscious computing machine (a brain). IOW, the information only exists in the brain, it is not an intrinsic property of the object that caused the physical stimulus.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
This sounds very much like Cartesian Dualism. The purple cow never actually existed, nor did I ever actually form a "picture" in my mind, it was a process that occurred in many parts of the brain. Now, I don't mean to state this as absolute fact, but there are serious flaws with the alternative. Let me give an example:

Let's say that the purple cow actually "appeared" at some point in my brain, then who's seeing it? IOW, how can I see the cow, unless I have "eyes" inside my head, in which case (after having applied the explanation that a "picture" is formed for the "mind's eye" to see) you will have an infinite regress - of "minds' eyes" sending images to their center of consciousness, which then views it with it's mind's eye, and so on, ad infinitum.

You are thinking too much. All we're talking about is assigning words to concepts so that we can then develop a view based on how we believe all these concepts interrelate. There are 2 steps in there. 1) assign words to concepts 2) state view based on words. You and zero only have one step. You build your view into the definitions and your done with it in one swipe. The problem with this is that you cannot discuss it with the opposing view because you don't have a common language.

The purple cow, whether it's a mental image or the result of brain processes, DOES exist as just that! It exists as the result of brain processing. That's very simple and there are no implications to materialism to make this definition. You use the phrase "actually exists" as if you are assuming that existence means for something to be material. And this is why I'm telling you that you're conclusion is built into the assumptions.

I am simply trying to show you that you need to leave the word 'existence' or 'exists' out of your definitions completely. Deciding what exists and what doesn't is part of step 2 not step 1.

Making existence the primary distinction between materialism and idealism is like saying the distinction between republicans and democrats is that democrats have more compassion. While the existence of compassion may be the result of the 2 views, it is NOT how they distinguish themselves. Both parties think they are the most compassionate! The real distinction in definition is that one believes in more governemnt involvement than the other etc etc.

I suppose that may be true, however I see the same problem with your definiton: "anything, that I can conceive of in my mind, exists". Built into this is the Cartesian idea that there is an inner mind (a mind smaller than the brain, that is), this requires that the "inner mind" be immaterial. But if something immaterial is implied, then the idea is inherently idealistic.

No. It is only an attempt to assign words to concepts so that a distinction can be made between the 2 views without one view being correct by definition.

That's the point, you cannot point to one's lack of knowledge, you can only "point to" instances in which this lack has become obvious.

And that is exactly my point. Someone's lack of knowledge is a statement worth communciating about in general and therefore must have a word assigned to it.

Apparently you missed the entire point of my illustration, since I was showing that the word was assigned by humans, to a definition that already existed.

But that's exactly what we're doing is assigning words to concepts. In this case it is the word 'materialism'.

But the car is a physical thing. Love (which is the example that we have been using) is also physical (in the same sense that "running" is physical). Love is an interaction - a physical one. Think of another example, if you want.

Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain.

A process is a thing, Mentat. It is a thing that falls under the category of 'process'. It seems as if almost every definition you use has a materialist assumption built right into it. The feeling of "love" cannot be fully communciated by making it synonymous with all of the physical interactions that you think causes it. A person experiencing love can do so with absolutely no knowledge of these processes. So the word is useful to distinquish between the process and the resulting experience.

I'm still in step one. Using these definitions will not end materialism. It will just make it so that a fair debate can happen with everyone using the same words.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Very funny. I'm sure that you know full well the difference between physical and material, so it is probably completely obvious to you that you don't need to be able to "trip over" something (figuratively speaking) to know that it's physical.

And yet to most people, "physical" applies to that which can readily be experienced through the five senses. Unless of course we had a "sixth sense?"

Really? What does this ability do for them specifically?

I'm only suggesting that there's evidence that it exists.

Well, we know that electron exist, if that's what you're asking. Electrons are physical, and they - along with photons - are responsible for electromagnetic phenomena, so there isn't much room for a metaphysical interpretation.

Ever trip over an electron?

Yes, and that intermediary cannot exist, since anything that is not physical is metaphysical (by the very nature of the word "metaphysical").

The only thing the word metaphysical suggests is primary or "first cause." Much like the "meta tags" in a webpage.

Here's what Dictionary.Com says about the word "metaphysics" ...

1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.

3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

Does that help clarify anything?

There is no "realm of information". If inormation could exist in a form outside of the processes of the brain, what would be the purpose of the brain?

Then what do you call radio waves, and the "information" which is broadcast over them?

When I see that the C.D. case beside me is "red", I am not observing an inherent property of the case or of the beams of light that entered my retina after reflecting off the case. I am only referring to the information which exists only in my brain.

Sounds almost like solipsism if you ask me.

In the brain of a bee (for example) the color would be rather different (I think they see ultraviolet frequencies of light), and in the brain of a dog there would be no color at all (I think they are color-blind, please correct me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't mean that they've failed to process some information that is intrinsic of the beam of light itself, it just means that they produced (note the term "produced") different information from the same physical stimulus.

I'm afraid all the brain does is "collect" the information -- which does exist -- before interpreting it and processing it, which includes any possible information existing on a "spiritual wavelength."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
You are thinking too much. All we're talking about is assigning words to concepts so that we can then develop a view based on how we believe all these concepts interrelate. There are 2 steps in there. 1) assign words to concepts 2) state view based on words. You and zero only have one step. You build your view into the definitions and your done with it in one swipe.

The purple cow, whether it's a mental image or the result of brain processes, DOES exist as just that! It exists as the result of brain processing. That's very simple and there are no implications to materialism to make this definition.

I assume you meant that there are no implications to idealism, but I assure you, you are wrong about that. The idea that the mind is something other than the physical brain is an idealistic idea. In order for the purple cow to exist in the brain, there would have to be a part of the brain that turned purple, and a part that assumed the shape of a cow, and a few other such completely ridiculous notions. However, you are not saying that the purple cow existed in the brain, you are saying it existed in the "mind", and to differentiate the two is completely idealistic.

You use the phrase "actually exists" as if you are assuming that existence means for something to be material. And this is why I'm telling you that you're conclusion is built into the assumptions.

When I said "actually exists", I meant that in any form that you care to consider, the purple cow does not exist.

I am simply trying to show you that you need to leave the word 'existence' or 'exists' out of your definitions completely. Deciding what exists and what doesn't is part of step 2 not step 1.

Well, then you've jumped the gun just as I have, since you have stated rather plainly that the purple cow "does exist".

No. It is only an attempt to assign words to concepts so that a distinction can be made between the 2 views without one view being correct by definition.

That may be what you intended, but it is not what you have produced. In order for you to say that "anything that exists in my mind is real", you have to assume the existence of the mind as something other than the brain, and that is an idealistic assumption.

I have to go right now. But I will complete my response tomorrow.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat

Mentat, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. You keep missing the point. I'll take some blame for it but I am trying.

I assume you meant that there are no implications to idealism, but I assure you, you are wrong about that. The idea that the mind is something other than the physical brain is an idealistic idea. In order for the purple cow to exist in the brain, there would have to be a part of the brain that turned purple, and a part that assumed the shape of a cow, and a few other such completely ridiculous notions. However, you are not saying that the purple cow existed in the brain, you are saying it existed in the "mind", and to differentiate the two is completely idealistic.

No I was not talking about the implications of Idealism. I'm not even talking about idealism. I'm talking about the implications of assigning words to concepts so that we can properly define materialism. There are no implications to assigning words the way I have. I am trying to put the 2 views on even ground with the same language much how Heusdens claims these things are actually defined in academia. A discussion between the 2 views is pointless with your definition.

When I said "actually exists", I meant that in any form that you care to consider, the purple cow does not exist.

What doesn't exists? A purple cow? Wow what a crazy idea. Pfft! A purple cow! Hey, wait a minute, I guess that means it exists as an idea!

If you still cannot see where I'm going with all this Mentat then don't respond. Whether the purple cow exists or not is irrelevant as I will explain below.

Well, then you've jumped the gun just as I have, since you have stated rather plainly that the purple cow "does exist".

You are not understanding. Whether the cow exists or not is not relevant. I was simply trying to get into your use of the word existence to show you how there is disagreement on how this word is used. Our disagreement on whether the purple cow exists or not is exactly the point I was trying to illustrate. So if you insist on using the word existence, then all you've done is back the debate up to now have to define that word. This is what I have been trying to avoid. No meaningful discussion can happen until a clear disntinction that everyone agrees on can be made between the 2 views. You have not done that.

That may be what you intended, but it is not what you have produced. In order for you to say that "anything that exists in my mind is real", you have to assume the existence of the mind as something other than the brain, and that is an idealistic assumption.

Forget about whether it exists or not. Just drop the word existence from your definition of materialism. Now see what kind of definition you can come up with.

I have to go right now. But I will complete my response tomorrow. ]

Why not check into some textbook definitions of materialism first?

 

[Mentat]

Look, Fliption, I see your point. The problem with this discussion is the term, "exist".

I will now set down what I see as the difference between Idealism and Materialism, because I think you have slightly missed the most important of the facets of my current position of Materialism.

Idealists believe that there are concepts. Concepts are things that exist only in the mind, but not in objective reality.

A true Materialist does not believe in concepts at all. It's not that they wish to believe that these concepts "don't exist" (whatever that's supposed to mean, since if they (note: I'm referring to "them") are concepts, then "they" exist as concepts.

So, Zero's definition is somewhat misleading (no offense), since it still implies that "there are concepts, they just don't exist". That doesn't make any sense, since, if something "is", it exists.

However, true materialism is the belief that there are no concepts in the first place. What you are calling concepts are really just responses to physical stimuli that have been saved in the memory of your brain, which can cause the same responses to occur later, without necessarily receiving the same physical stimulus.

Thus, if I have heard a piece by Chopin before, what was happening when I heard it? The sounds were being processed and remembered in different parts of my brain, only to stimulate a similar (though not identical) response in those same parts of the brain, when "asked".

Now comes the question of "who does the asking". My taking the materialist position doesn't allow me to believe that anyone did the asking, but rather that different parts of your brain are constantly "asking" of the memory, due to a natural inclination of the human brain. Now, these "askings" - or stimulations of memory - are not entirely random - though much of it is rather chaotic (without much order) - but are often stimulated by a new situation that is, in some way, similar to that which first stimulated the aforementioned responses.

So, you can see here that my position is not about what "exists" and what does not (that question doesn't even really make sense), but rather about whether there is such a thing as a "concept" or not.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Look, Fliption, I see your point. The problem with this discussion is the term, "exist".

I will now set down what I see as the difference between Idealism and Materialism, because I think you have slightly missed the most important of the facets of my current position of Materialism.

Idealists believe that there are concepts. Concepts are things that exist only in the mind, but not in objective reality.

So, you can see here that my position is not about what "exists" and what does not (that question doesn't even really make sense), but rather about whether there is such a thing as a "concept" or not.

Hmmm. I sense that progress was made but I didn't understand the relevance of a lot of that post. But it seems you understand where I was going. What I was trying to do was simply define what a materialist believes and then by simply reversing that view, define the opposing position. This gives us a clear dividing line from which the debate can now occur. My problem with the definition of materialism being "belief in that which can be shown to exists" is that you cannot reverse it and make it represent the opposing view and get that dividing line from which we can now debate; Because the 2 sides would interpret words like "shown" and existence" entirely different. So all I was trying to do was define materialism in such a way that everyone can agree on what we are really disagreeing on!

Heusdens has presented a "philosohpical" definition of matter and a "physical/scientific" definition of matter. He claimed, and I agree with him, that everyone is getting the 2 confused. The philosophical position of materialism is based on the philosophical definition of matter, not the physical one. The philosophical definition is poised to draw a distinct line between the 2 views facilitating a debate. The physical definition is too vague and sloppy for that. Once these words are assigned properly then you(Mentat) can come in and state that in your view of materialism(step 2) these concepts that the idealists believe are primary are nothing of the sort. They are simply the physical processes/interactions themselves.

Now as for your view of materialism...let me leave you with a quote from Cjames that came from the thread "On the Existence of Objective Reality". He says it very well and I'm going to assume that you disagree with him. I agree with him.

CJames

The Objective paradigm, or materialist/physicalist view, is that only the brain exists. The subjective view is that only mind exists. But don't forget about duality. I don't really consider myself a dualist either, however I believe the mind and brain coexist. The mind is not a material object, but rather an emmergent behaviour. It is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. As FZ was talking about earlier, chaos/complexity theory is showing that systems of particles show behavior not found in the particles themselves. I am essentially a materialist, but a materialist would argue only the particles exist. I dissagree, as the behavior of the particles exists as well. This behavior is, in the case of the brain and all its requirements, what we call the mind.

It is true that these emergent properties are caused by physical parts but they themselves are not matter in neither the physical nor the philosophical sense. These holistic properties cannot be reduced to some lower level of matter to see how "it all sums up" because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think the concept of "mind" is used to refer to these holistic properties of the brain, the same way the concept of love is used to represent the "experience" associated with certain brain functions. There is no way you can know all there is about love by studying the brains processes because you are missing the emergent pieces. You have to "experience" the whole and feel the love. Then you understand.

 

[sascha]

Somehow it is astonishing, at least to me, how this thread is evolving, haggling about definitions and existence. That's not useful for getting anywhere in comparison with the aim of this thread. For covering what I think is important in this dicussion, allow me to quote some paragraphs out of an article the I published some years ago:

In science it is usual today to set out from definitions. In this view, possessing a good definition is useful for knowing what to seek. It is rarely seen that by the same token this welcome heuristic function is limited, blocking the access to universal laws right from the beginning, because defining requires knowing already what in fact is to be queried as to its relations within the overall connex. As an example, when physicists reduce agency to the mathematical element of "operators", they are compelled to define 'force' backwards as a derivative (rate of change) of momentum: d(mv) / dt = F (a definition known as Newton's second law, central to mechanics and relativity). By this conceptual choice they automatically self-limit themselves and block their path in future towards more general understandings of force — for instance one that can encompass also all the forces of autonomous life. But there is no need to content oneself with piecemeal. (The same problem arises in wanting to define matter, e.g. through existence.)

A widespread opinion is that a definition can be tested, meaning that it can be verified through empirical evidence. Apart from correct objections raised by Popper, emphasizing falsification, we should note that 'testing' a definition can only lead to a limited validity of the discoverable laws, never to strictly universally valid laws, because no data can ever cover totality. (Yet when it comes to the foundation of a science, universality is precisely the most interesting aim: to find the principle of what it wants to undestand, not only regularities of some appearances.)

It is easily possible to have many definitions and theories about something, and they do not need to exclude each other. Take the example of the geometrical circle: it can be defined eg. as a line with a constant distance from a point, or of constant curvature, or as locus of all right angles over a given span. They all refer to the law of the circle, which can only be one and is thus as such of Platonic nature; it looks different depending on the viewpoint chosen in approaching it. (The complete characteristics of the law of the circle can be encompased in no definition, in no language. That is why mathematicians keep finding out new aspects and implications of that law; if they would set out from a definition, and stick to that, they would become sterile... like much of this debate)

In the same way we can have many definitions and theories eg. of material matter — querying conditions for measuring its minimal parts (quantum theory), its movements (relativity theory), or its metamorphoses (theory of nonlinear dynamics), etc. Or we can have many definitions and theories on life: we can query the conditions necessary for life, or its essential nature, or causes for it to appear, etc. What we invariably need is an overall framework of universal concepts that allow to assemble all possible aspects. It is useful to clarify the presuppositions, and thus what secretly is hoped for, rejected or sought, when asking for definitions and theories.

 

[metacristi]

Zero

Why the bias against materialism?

I am not aware of the bias you talk about (I came enough seldom on this board) so that I cannot pronounce myself whether they are right or not but I can present my point of view in the subject.

First we need a definition:materialism is usually understood as being the belief that everything that exist is material,the so called ontological materialism.Well a big problem with it is that,since it involves ontological commitment,we can safely attach the label 'metaphysical' to it.That's why many materialists try to avoid it by claiming that they do not assume materialism true,they only consider it the most probable to be true insisting that materialism is 'testable'.

Or as I'll argue further this argument is not valid.I'm afraid that we cannot consider the actual scientific data as providing us valid 'confirmations' of ontological materialism even in the happiest case (for atheists/skeptics) that we will find arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that consciousness is material (which is much beyond the actual conjecture that consciousness is computable and can be fully explained residing entirely at the macroscopical level).

Indeed if ontological dualism is true (dualism understood as the existence of another 'substance' that cannot interact with matter) we will never be aware of that.So that it is pointless to claim that ontological materialism is 'testable' since all we can test is matter (understood in the broadest sense as representing everything that can interact with 'usual' matter).

At most we can see the actual state of things in the neurology field as representing a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) that consciousness does not have a dual nature,belonging entirely to 'our level of reality' (that can interact with usual matter)...Or clearly this cannot qualify as a 'confirmation' of materialism itself,at least the ontological materialism.There are other defintions of materialism which do not involve ontological commitment (as it is the logical positivist definition of physicalism which some label 'modern materialism'),they have the same problem,there is no way to test the generic stance of modern materialism (all that we can do is to establish experimentally that specific,previously unknown to exist,'entities' are 'material' according with the definition of 'modern materialism').So that I'd say that there are big problems with materialism...

 

[rocket art]

hi. discussions here seems to get very long indeed, not surprisingly. let me post some of my compositions as another contribution to it which may put some accent points.

"It takes one to know everything before one can say he/she knows nothing."
-rocket art

(well I can't say I know everything, so I can't say I know nothing )

"Visions that approach beyond reason are achieved when there is no reason why not."
-rocket art

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm. I sense that progress was made but I didn't understand the relevance of a lot of that post.

I was mainly trying to help form these definitions that we need to continue the discussion. An Idealist believes that there are concepts. A Materialist does not. The rest of the post was just explaining (in a very brief, and somewhat incomplete, manner) how the illusion of concepts presents itself to us, while such a thing needn't really exist ("really exist" meaning that there needn't be such a thing as a concept).

But it seems you understand where I was going. What I was trying to do was simply define what a materialist believes and then by simply reversing that view, define the opposing position. This gives us a clear dividing line from which the debate can now occur. My problem with the definition of materialism being "belief in that which can be shown to exists" is that you cannot reverse it and make it represent the opposing view and get that dividing line from which we can now debate; Because the 2 sides would interpret words like "shown" and existence" entirely different. So all I was trying to do was define materialism in such a way that everyone can agree on what we are really disagreeing on!

That's the sensical thing to do, but I disapprove of your previous attempt at defining Idealism, since it contains a purely Idealistic concept, the idea of the mind - as something other than the brain itself. IIRC, you said that the Idealistic belief is "Anything I can conceive of in my mind exists". This already not only assumes that there is a subjective mind, but also that there are concepts within that mind.

Heusdens has presented a "philosohpical" definition of matter and a "physical/scientific" definition of matter. He claimed, and I agree with him, that everyone is getting the 2 confused. The philosophical position of materialism is based on the philosophical definition of matter, not the physical one. The philosophical definition is poised to draw a distinct line between the 2 views facilitating a debate. The physical definition is too vague and sloppy for that. Once these words are assigned properly then you(Mentat) can come in and state that in your view of materialism(step 2) these concepts that the idealists believe are primary are nothing of the sort. They are simply the physical processes/interactions themselves.

Actually, I think that this clarification may be necessary before defining Idealism or Materialism. After all, I don't except your definition of Idealism, mainly because it requires the use of terms that are themselves Idealistic. But, without a clarification similar to what I attempted in my previous post, it cannot easily be seen that these terms are purley Idealistic.

Now as for your view of materialism...let me leave you with a quote from Cjames that came from the thread "On the Existence of Objective Reality". He says it very well and I'm going to assume that you disagree with him. I agree with him.

CJames


It is true that these emergent properties are caused by physical parts but they themselves are not matter in neither the physical nor the philosophical sense.

However, right off the bat, he assumes that there is such a thing as the "emergent properties". After all, to say that there was a "purple cow" (just an illustration, not some main point in my argument; you see, of course, that the "purple cow" would be an "emergent property") in my "mind", as though "mind" were somehow different than "brain", is a purely Idealistic phrasing.

Zero was complaining before about the fact that there can't be a "grey area" between Idealism and Materialism. You were the one that pointed this out to him, yet I think that you have fallen into something like the same trap. In order to directly attempt a definition of Idealism (or Materialism, for that matter) one must be unbiased in their use of words. IOW, one cannot use a term in their definition that is biased toward one or the other belief. Yet, to try and speak of Idealism or Materialism in an unbiased way is to seek a "grey area", and such a thing doesn't exist. Thus, it may be (I'm not sure, but maybe) that Heusden's and your system is unusable on this particular occasion.

These holistic properties cannot be reduced to some lower level of matter to see how "it all sums up" because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think the concept of "mind" is used to refer to these holistic properties of the brain, the same way the concept of love is used to represent the "experience" associated with certain brain functions. There is no way you can know all there is about love by studying the brains processes because you are missing the emergent pieces.

Now, try to define "emergent pieces" in a framework that is not completely biased toward Idealism.

My point is that, to be completely unbiased, we cannot assume that holistic, or emergent, properties exist at all, until some convincing argument can be given on one side or the other. To assume that something "emerges" from the physical processes of the brain is purely Idealistic, and has not place in an attempt to define Idealism itself.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

 

[Fliption]

You are all confused Mentat.

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the sensical thing to do, but I disapprove of your previous attempt at defining Idealism, since it contains a purely Idealistic concept, the idea of the mind - as something other than the brain itself. IIRC, you said that the Idealistic belief is "Anything I can conceive of in my mind exists". This already not only assumes that there is a subjective mind, but also that there are concepts within that mind.

If you are still saying this then you have not understood anything I've said. I am not trying to proclaim any truths here. You keep insisting that I am. I do not know how to convey that all I'm doing is assigning words. I can only type it, I can't make you understand it.

Actually, I think that this clarification may be necessary before defining Idealism or Materialism. After all, I don't except your definition of Idealism, mainly because it requires the use of terms that are themselves Idealistic. But, without a clarification similar to what I attempted in my previous post, it cannot easily be seen that these terms are purley Idealistic.

Again, the definitions don't proclaim truths about what is and what isn't. It is only assigning words so that we can identify the view. If you do not believe theses things really exists then that is a disagreement with Idealism. Not it's definition.

However, right off the bat, he assumes that there is such a thing as the "emergent properties". After all, to say that there was a "purple cow" (just an illustration, not some main point in my argument; you see, of course, that the "purple cow" would be an "emergent property") in my "mind", as though "mind" were somehow different than "brain", is a purely Idealistic phrasing.

Mentat, I didn't understand the point of much of that but it is clear you don't understand complexity theory. Everytime I discuss things with you, you seem to deny what I think is common scientific knowledge and concepts. Even FZ is talking about this one!(as noted by Cjames)

Zero was complaining before about the fact that there can't be a "grey area" between Idealism and Materialism. You were the one that pointed this out to him, yet I think that you have fallen into something like the same trap. In order to directly attempt a definition of Idealism (or Materialism, for that matter) one must be unbiased in their use of words. IOW, one cannot use a term in their definition that is biased toward one or the other belief. Yet, to try and speak of Idealism or Materialism in an unbiased way is to seek a "grey area", and such a thing doesn't exist. Thus, it may be (I'm not sure, but maybe) that Heusden's and your system is unusable on this particular occasion.

First of all Zero never made any points at all that were productive or thoughtful. He rarely does. But all of this that you've said is the same mistake as above. Your trying to make the definition claim truths. It is not. You are supposed to disagree with the views after the definitions are set. And btw, these definitions are not made up by Heusdens or myself. Again, you find yourself in disagreement with established academia...( Quamtum Physics, Philsophy, complexity theory...whats next?heheh)

Now, try to define "emergent pieces" in a framework that is not completely biased toward Idealism.

See complexity theory. Read Read Read. I thought this was common knowledge. I just assumed you wouldn't deny it's relevance. Sorry I brouht it up because I think I confused you as noted below.

My point is that, to be completely unbiased, we cannot assume that holistic, or emergent, properties exist at all, until some convincing argument can be given on one side or the other. To assume that something "emerges" from the physical processes of the brain is purely Idealistic, and has not place in an attempt to define Idealism itself.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Here you have totally confused the dicussion of definitions with the discussion of materialism vs idealism itself. I thought I made the switch clear. The emergent properties has nothing to do with the definition discussion. It was an actual rebuttal to materialism. So it's supposed to be biased! Good call!

Mentat I think the best way to move forward is for you to tell us what the philosophical view of materialism means. If this cannot be done then I think we shouldn't call ourselves materialists anymore until we can define it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by sascha
Somehow it is astonishing, at least to me, how this thread is evolving, haggling about definitions and existence.

You might have more success influencing the thread if you write so that people can understand you.

 

[sascha]

My aim is not to influence people, but to offer thoughts an interconnections that some don't seem to think about. Asking specific questions about what you don't understand would make it easier to respond adequately.