Why the bias against materialism?

[sascha]

Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.

And what problem is that? I still don't understand your point about physical rules. You drop things, they fall. Any time that they don't, there is a physical reason for it. Drop something that shuld fall, and it doesn't fall, and that would be a good step towards showing me that a non-materialistic viewpoint has merit.

 

[sascha]

Zero, I have much sympathy for your endeavour to emphasize a need for overcoming the hope of many people to be 'above' the rest of the animal kingdom. This is indeed an important point in our crazy times, where nearly everybody wants to overpower the others. The difference between your approach (you might want to say the "materialist" approach -- but by far not all people handle it in the same way) and mine is that you emphasize the inevitable subordination of beings under the laws of matter (if it were matter without laws, matter would have no power over them), while I emphasize the absolute need for a categoreality in thinking which is truly universal -- and which, in fact, only those minds can reach who operate in profound humility. To my sense, the subordination under matter is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for getting clear the whole philosophical riddle.

 

[sascha]

The problem of laws is not only in the single "rules", such as mass attracted towards other mass, but the hierarchy of all laws, in the last resort the overall order -- e.g. what is the relation between relativity and quantum approach, what makes "things" come and go at all, etc.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
And yet you haven't even read the opposing view?

No, because to say that the mind is anything other than physical is to imply a line of reasoning that leads to infinite regress - as I've shown numerous times in the past.

And that is all I have done.

Yeah right. No offense, but you used terms of a completely Idealistic nature (such as "inside consciousness" and "outside consciousness" and "mind" (as something other than the brain, that is)), throughout the entire discussion thusfar, and now you say that you've only been saying "Idealists believe in emergent properties"?

No, you were saying (before, at least) that Idealists believe that these "emergent properties" are primary while materialists believe them to be secondary.

Yes don't counter it cause you would be proving exactly what I was trying to prove. Don't you understand that the point of that example was not to defend Idealism? I wasn't trying to make a good argument for why love existed. I was merely trying to show that someone can take the view that it does because we cannot define "shown to exists". The fact that the materialist can make the claim you suggested just makes my point even more.

No it doesn't. Don't you realize yet that no one can show love (or anything else that isn't physical) to exist? It isn't logically possible, because, even if Idealism was correct, there would be no way to convey my "thoughts" to you, except through physical means.

Thus, when I say that Zero's definition is OK (though slightly misleading), I am saying that because no Idealist can ever *show* that there is such a thing as "things that exist only 'inside consciousness'".

Whether the argument for or against materialism in my example is a good one or not is not the point. The point is that the definition doesn't lend itself to a debate on the topic at all. It just begs for more definitional clarification.

Only when someone (you, in this case) wishes to enforce the fact that phenomenological things can be shown to exist. This is, obviously, not the case.

Now, we can either continue to debate this utterly meaningless problem that you have with Zero's original definition or we can move on (perhaps using my definition instead), like rational people do.

I just don't get why you cannot accept this.Your view seems VERY extreme and impractical. What does the word "color" mean to you? Under your understanding of what "color" is, do you think it is a creation of your subjective experience or do you think color really exists?

Color doesn't "really exist" (I can't believe that you, of all people, would ever use the term "really exist" ). Color is a part of our processing incoming light of different wavelengths.

Basically, it (light of a particular wavelength) has a certain effect on our retina and that sends a distinguished message (distinguished from other wavelengths, that is) to the brain.

Color exists as much as pain does. It is just a way that our brain has evolved to process a certain kind of stimulus.

I feel that we are having severe semantic problems here. Just answer the question about color and maybe I can understand better what you're view is because it seems totally radical and unusable to me right now.

What's so "unusable" about it? I understand if it seems "radical", since it's counter-intuitive (our consciousness plays a very convincing "trick" on itself), but not unusable.

As is the case with a magician and a gullible audience, the card never really passed through the table (nor did it in any metaphysical make-believe world), it is a trick the brain plays on itself.

You are not wrong in your conclusion but your assumptions are wrong. I was trying to be extra careful so that you wouldn't make this claim but you did anyway. The labeling of the secondary "things" is simply assigning words to perceived effects to the processes of the primary "things". The word "color" is used to describe an effect of experiencing matter. Must people would agree color does not really exists but it is a very useful word for describing the effect. The materialists can easily make the conclusion that all things are material from this definition. The only bias here is desired bias. If you cannot see that this definition at least lends itself to helping people understand the distinctions between the views then I'm not sure what else to say.

Oh, it's easy to see how it helps in explanation, but it's nothing more than that. Color (and all other such words that you believe refer to some "secondary thing") does not exist (in any sense of the word).

This is completely unreasonable for you to say there is no grey area. This goes against the whole idea of philosophy; claiming we cannot have a discussion on a topic because all the words are biased. When you started out participating in this thread you weren't saying this at all. You were disagreeing with me when I claimed that Zero's definition was biased and not effective for use in a discussion. Now you are trying to claim that it is impossible to come up with an unbiased definition of your view. So 2 things can be concluded from your view.

1) I was right. Zero's definition is biased.
2) There is no definition of materialism that will allow an opposing view. Because the materialists conclusion is built into the definition. And this apparently doesn't allow even a word to be assigned to an opposing view. Let alone an opposing argument.

No, no, no, you misunderstood (probably my fault). When I said that there was no "grey area", I meant that you haven't found any unbiased way of defining Idealism. And, if you can't be unbiased, then you can't try to define immediately, but must reverse the order that you and Heusdens decided on.

Anyway, Zero's definition doesn't directly refer to what materialism is, because (and I was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up) materialism is not a belief (any more than atheism is), but it is rather a negation of a belief. The materialist's opinion is that there are no "emergent properties", which is merely a negation of the Idealistic assumption that there are.

AFAIC, even the definition "...believes in all things that can be shown to exist" is just a negation (rightly so, since it is ascribed to materialism) of the idea that "something exists which cannot be shown to others as existing".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.

No it doesn't. The "problem" is not semantics (which is what you made is seem like, btw, when you kept referrring to fact that we still call "them" "laws") it's in the very concept behind the words used. There is no "law" to the Universe since there would be no one to dictate that such "laws" are to be obeyed (leaving discussions of God out of this) and the Universe isn't conscious anyway (leaving discussions of panpsychism out as well), so it wouldn't be able to "comply" with any "laws".

When a scientist says "Law", s/he is referring to an observation made about the way that the Universe behaves.

 

[sascha]

Zero, if you want an example of matter not falling where it should, look at any plant. It carries matter upwards -- but why should it do so?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat


Anyway, Zero's definition doesn't directly refer to what materialism is, because (and I was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up) materialism is not a belief (any more than atheism is), but it is rather a negation of a belief. The materialist's opinion is that there are no "emergent properties", which is merely a negation of the Idealistic assumption that there are.

AFAIC, even the definition "...believes in all things that can be shown to exist" is just a negation (rightly so, since it is ascribed to materialism) of the idea that "something exists which cannot be shown to others as existing".

Well, it DOES dovetail nicely with my atheism, doesn't it? Quick, someone make the calim that it is logical to assert the existence of things which cannot actually be shown to exist!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
Zero, if you want an example of matter not falling where it should, look at any plant. It carries matter upwards -- but why should it do so?

That is a rather inane example, isn't it? I expected something much better. When you have a REAL example, feel free to try again.

 

[sascha]

Laws have nothing to do with a dictate, but with the way things ultimately are structured, or the way processes ultimately unravel. The dictate aspect comes in only when conflating the concept of law with the concept of force. This is widespread, but certainly not what I am doing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Going back to the real topic, I was thinking alittle bit about what Mentat and I have been discussing. And I'd like to ask a question to all the proclaimed materialists to illustrate a point.

My question is this..."What possible result from a scientific experiment would convince you that all things are not material?"

A scientific experiment occurs in the physical realm and can thus have no relation with the metaphysical (science doesn't deal with such question anyway). So no scientific experiment could ever show this. As to this...

IOW, what would it take for you to change your mind? Be very specific please.

1) It would take an explanation of what the intermediary, between that which is physical and that which is not, is.

2) It would take an explanation of how the mind can have an "inner observer" (of all the phenomenological events) without infinite regress.

There are probably other things (perhaps Zero will post them) that would be needed, but these two seem impossible enough for the time being .

 

[sascha]

Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
Laws have nothing to do with a dictate, but with the way things ultimately are structured, or the way processes ultimately unravel. The dictate aspect comes in only when conflating the concept of law with the concept of force. This is widespread, but certainly not what I am doing.

The way processes unravel may or may not be an indication of how they are "ultimately stuctured". See the first post of this thread.

Whether or not this is the case is really the determining factor in whether these observations should (logically) be called "laws" or not.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?

Matter doesn't "want" anything. Study some evolutionary theory, you seem to have missed that part in high school Biology.

BTW, life is a very good way to increase entropy, and that is what the Universe tends toward.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?

Assigning wants and needs to matter...very anthropomorphic of you, and illogical.

 

[sascha]

But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.

You are going backwards...and you are trying to assign porpose, which is #4 on the list of why people reject the evidence for materialism...

 

[sascha]

I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.

It didn't "invent" life, life is still a part of nature, it's just a different (more effecient) form of the same stuff.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.

Don't turn this into a debate about evolution, please. The last thing we need is a side-track that will potentially get the thread severed in half (or worse, moved).

 

[sascha]

Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.

Yes it is. You are right that it is an important point in the argument between materialistic and idealistic viewpoints, however the current discussion is of the nature of consciousness, and I don't want to leave this undecided or misunderstood.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.

Anything can be doubted...except if you believe in spirits and special cases, in which you can always have a handy non-explanation to use.

 

[sascha]

BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.

Again, this is a case of a complex process which mirrors less complex ones. It is just chemistry, the same things that cause rainclouds and icicles, forms life. Mo magic, nothing but a fancier result of basic reactions.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?

Actually, I think he may have misspoken...life is not efficient at all, but I think I'll leave it to him to clarify...

 

[sascha]

Mentat, the alternative to Materialism is not just Idealism. There is at least another dozen positions, in case you care.
And Zero, I don't see your point about doubting and spirits etc..

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?

I meant (as can be easily deduced from my previous posts) that it (a living organism) is very effecient at increasing entropy - which is the path of least resistance for the Universe, and thus doesn't need to be "strived for" (as I may have accidentally implied) but is the inevitable tendency.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha

And Zero, I don't see your point.

Which point are you missing?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, the alternative to Materialism is not just Idealism. There is at least another dozen positions, in case you care.
And Zero, I don't see your point.

Materialism is not a belief. Materialism is the negation of Idealism. Thus, any idea that is not Idealistic in any way is Materialistic.

The same comparison can be drawn between "physical" and "metaphysical". Anything that is not physical is it's negation (the metaphysical).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
I meant (as can be easily deduced from my previous posts) that it (a living organism) is very effecient at increasing entropy - which is the path of least resistance for the Universe, and thus doesn't need to be "strived for" (as I may have accidentally implied) but is the inevitable tendency.

Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existence seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existence seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.

Yeah, I probably should have just said it like that and avoided misunderstanding .

 

[sascha]

So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.

Entropy doesn't mean destruction...you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the physical world to be making judgments on it, at least based on this and your posting about evolution.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.

LMBO!

You can't be serious.

Yes, I suppose this could be true, but I never implied it. I was merely saying that life itself is very good - in itself - at increasing entropy.