Can the materialist explain the origin of love?

[tonyrey]

Sure, you can assert that. But the difference between your wild assertion and my reasonable answer is that my answer is supported by evidence: we have lots and lots and lots of evidence that indicates that matter exists and that minds depend on brains (I even mentioned actual experiments done where the data has indicated a portion of the brain that makes choices before the mind experiences “making” the choice).

It indicates nothing of the kind. It merely indicates that a person’s awareness of making the choice occurs after brain activity.

The difference comes down to evidence. We actually have evidence. You have fantasy.

You have fantasy that everything is material.Where is your evidence that **everything **is material?

If you have evidence to the contrary (evidence – not questions), feel free to present it.

Can you observe a** fact**? Where is it? Can you observe the** theory **that everything is material? Can you observe the **principle **of causality?

How many times is it that I’ve asked you for evidence now?

I have produced it but you have ignored it. You failed to answer these questions:
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?
You also gave answers which are clearly false, e.g.
“Truth is a label we give to our ideas corresponding to the world outside of our head.”
It is not a label at all. It is the **correspondence **of a belief or proposition to fact. Correspondence is an intangible, objective relationship that cannot be observed. Since there are many other intangible realities like logical truths, mathematical proportions and **physical constants **which existed before there was no one to observe or think of them how can they be nothing more than concepts? As Nagel pointed out, physicalism is unequivocally false.

“Good,” “evil,” and “justice,” are likewise labels that we put on kinds of actions (that we like or don’t like).

This statement is clearly false because people often dislike what is good and like what is evil or unjust.

 

[AntiTheist]

Sigh.

You have fantasy that everything is material.Where is your evidence that **everything **is material?

I believe it is very likely that the physical universe is all that there is because we have tons of evidence that the physical universe exists and we have zero evidence that any other kind of world exists that is independent of the physical. I don’t hold this to be an absolute position, though, and I’d be happy to change my position if presented with evidence.

Evidence. Not questions.

I have produced it but you have ignored it. You failed to answer these questions:

Questions are not evidence. Try again.

 

[tonyrey]

Sigh.
I believe it is very likely that the physical universe is all that there is because we have tons of evidence that the physical universe exists and we have zero evidence that any other kind of world exists that is independent of the physical. I don’t hold this to be an absolute position, though, and I’d be happy to change my position if presented with evidence.

Evidence. Not questions.

Questions are not evidence. Try again.

The fact that you ignore my questions is **evidence **that you are unable to do so. All you can do is repeat the mantra “give me evidence”. The fact that you totally ignore the statement refuting physicalism by Thomas Nagel, distinguished professor of philosophy at New York University, is **evidence **that you are unable to do so.

If you fail to answer these questions I shall waste no more time trying to reason with you:

Can you observe a** fact**? Where is it? Can you observe the** theory **that everything is material? Can you observe the **principle **of causality?
A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?

“Truth is a label we give to our ideas corresponding to the world outside of our head.”

It is not a label at all. It is the **correspondence **of a belief or proposition to fact. Correspondence is an intangible, objective relationship that cannot be observed. Since there are many other intangible realities like logical truths, mathematical proportions and **physical constants **which existed before there was no one to observe or think of them how can they be nothing more than concepts?

“Good,” “evil,” and “justice,” are likewise labels that we put on kinds of actions (that we like or don’t like).

This statement is clearly false because people often dislike what is good and like what is evil or unjust. The **objective reality **of persons, truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, justice, responsibility and love is **overwhelming evidence **that atomic particles are a hopelessly inadequate explanation of everything that exists…

Finally, do you treat yourself and others as **products **of a pile of dust?

 

[AntiTheist]

All you can do is repeat the mantra “give me evidence”.

So you have no evidence, then? Understood.

To repeat: there is a ton of evidence that suggests that matter exists and that minds and concepts contained in minds are dependent upon the existence of matter. Any further claims – including the assertion that minds can exist without matter – require evidence.

Tonyrey has presented none on this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

So you have no evidence, then? Understood.

To repeat: there is a ton of evidence that suggests that matter exists and that minds and concepts contained in minds are dependent upon the existence of matter. Any further claims – including the assertion that minds can exist without matter – require evidence.
Tonyrey has presented none on this thread.

The same old refrain! And not a single answer to my questions - which AntiTheist obviously does not know how to answer > He cannot even explain what he considers to be evidence! I leave others to draw their own conclusions and refer to the post “Is materialism mumbo-jumbo?”

 

[Leela]

The same old refrain! And not a single answer to my questions - which AntiTheist obviously does not know how to answer > He cannot even explain what he considers to be evidence! I leave others to draw their own conclusions and refer to the post “Is materialism mumbo-jumbo?”

I don’t know why you keep going on about evidence as though it were something esoteric. I assume he uses the word like anyone else. It refers to experiences that support a given conclusion.

As far as conclusions about the thread in general and materialism being mumbo-jumbo, you’ve defined materialism in such a way that no one holds that view, and you are right to say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know why you keep going on about evidence as though it were something esoteric. I assume he uses the word like anyone else. It refers to experiences that support a given conclusion.

He equates evidence with physical evidence.

As far as conclusions about the thread in general and materialism being mumbo-jumbo, you’ve defined materialism in such a way that no one holds that view, and you are right to say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.

How do you define it?

 

[wanstronian]

As far as conclusions about the thread in general and materialism being mumbo-jumbo, you’ve defined materialism in such a way that no one holds that view, and you are right to say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.

Bang on, and I pointed out this fact in the ‘mumbo-jumbo’ thread.

Maybe this warped view of materialism is the reason that thread got closed. It was like a thread starting, “Don’t you think that spaghetti would be tastier if it wasn’t blue?”

The whole materialism thing, for a theist, appears to boil down to this:
“I can’t explain where consciousness/free will/morals/etc. come from, therefore I hypothesise, without evidence, a supernatural origin and any theory that refuses to accept this arbitrary assertion is mumbo-jumbo.”

or alternatively:

“If materialism can’t fully explain X, then materialism must be mumbo-jumbo (regardless of the fact that no other theory or hypothesis can explain it either).”

 

[Leela]

He equates evidence with physical evidence.

What sorts of experiences is he not considerring as evidence that he ought to consider?

How do you define it?

I think he only means it as in contrast with supernaturalism which posits the existence of a world beyond ordinary experience. For him (and I agree), anything that is experienced he calls “natural,” which doesn’t leave any room for anything interesting that is unnatural since what is never experienced is of no concern to us.

 

[Sair]

Not sure if these have been answered on another thread, but I’ll have a go, rather than just arguing back and forth about the efficacy of playing tennis with questions.

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?

The parts of the brain that are responsible for synthesising sensory information about the world into concepts, ideas, predictions, etc.

1. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?

When we can choose a particular course of action from multiple alternatives, using our reason as discussed above, then we are responsible for the action we choose. When there are no alternatives (a rare but plausible circumstance) we can’t be held responsible for taking the only course of action possible. Most Western legal systems recognise the defence of diminished responsibility, for a variety of reasons.

1. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?

No, because those aforementioned parts of the brain that synthesise information into ideas also build a picture, based upon our experience and that of others of our kind, of what constitute beneficial and detrimental actions and circumstances. We can choose between these, although our choices may be circumscribed by any number of factors, including our own instincts. So we can choose, but our freedom is limited.

1. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?

Facts are established as such by observation and accumulated evidence. Scientific theories are what may be thought of as the ‘best fit’ explanation that takes these facts into account. Theories can change in the light of new facts, or they can be strengthened by the accumulation of facts that do not contradict the explanation.

1. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?

No, because we can tell when we are being positive and creative - some actions have favourable outcomes, or produce things. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

1. Evil refers to that which is negative and destructive. Do we imagine we do evil?

See previous response, inverted.

1. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?

Our observations of the behaviour of others, and the way they interact with us, should be able to tell us when we are getting along with our fellows. We feel uneasy when things in our lives are not going the way we think they should. These things are not a fiction, nor are the emotions we experience as a result of social interaction and personal circumstances.

1. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?

We have the ability to construct possible goals in our minds, through the aforementioned processes of synthesising information. We can then choose to act in such a way as to bring these goals about - in much the same way (though at a greater level of complexity) that a hungry tiger goes about acquiring food.

1. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment. Fact or fiction?

It seems a little futile to argue over the definitions of love that people choose to construct. However, as a somewhat more prosaic explanation than the one you’ve offered, when we interact with people whose company we enjoy, especially when we are in the intimate company of a person to whom we feel a sexual attraction, endorphins are released in the body, which result in feelings of euphoria, contentment, satisfaction - depending upon the extent to which we are affected.

That was certainly an interesting exercise in attempting a naturalistic explanation for ideas and emotions…especially considering that I am by no means a qualified scientist! :whacky:

 

[AntiTheist]

The whole materialism thing, for a theist, appears to boil down to this:
“I can’t explain where consciousness/free will/morals/etc. come from, therefore I hypothesise, without evidence, a supernatural origin and any theory that refuses to accept this arbitrary assertion is mumbo-jumbo.”

or alternatively:

“If materialism can’t fully explain X, then materialism must be mumbo-jumbo (regardless of the fact that no other theory or hypothesis can explain it either).”

You hit the nail right on the head.

Most non-believers are “materialists” in the sense of “we have a lot of evidence that the physical world exists, and we have no evidence that an independent non-physical world exists; until we get more evidence, we won’t assume that independent non-physical worlds exist.”

And, just to avoid confusion, “We don’t have an explanation for X” isn’t evidence of anything except ignorance.

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure if these have been answered on another thread, but I’ll have a go, rather than just arguing back and forth about the efficacy of playing tennis with questions.

Well done! At least you’re getting on with the real business instead of sniping…

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?

The parts of the brain that are responsible for synthesising sensory information about the world into concepts, ideas, predictions, etc.

How do you think the brain grasps abstract concepts? Like freedom and infinity for example? How can it transcend time and space? And, even more problematical, how did the brain become aware of itself?

                          2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?

When we can choose a particular course of action from multiple alternatives, using our reason as discussed above, then we are responsible for the action we choose. When there are no alternatives (a rare but plausible circumstance) we can’t be held responsible for taking the only course of action possible. Most Western legal systems recognise the defence of diminished responsibility, for a variety of reasons.

The problem here is that the brain functions according to physical laws. If materialism is true a choice is really (the result of) a neural event over which “we” have no control. So how can we have even diminished responsibility for things which happen whether we like it or not?

1. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?

No, because those aforementioned parts of the brain that synthesise information into ideas also build a picture, based upon our experience and that of others of our kind, of what constitute beneficial and detrimental actions and circumstances… So we can choose, but our freedom is limited.

The same difficulty arises. To say “We can choose” implies that we are somehow distinct and independent of our brain.

1. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?

Facts are established as such by observation and accumulated evidence. Scientific theories are what may be thought of as the ‘best fit’ explanation that takes these facts into account. Theories can change in the light of new facts, or they can be strengthened by the accumulation of facts that do not contradict the explanation.

I agree with you but I’m concerned with the nature of a fact. What is it exactly?
It was a fact that things existed before life existed so it cannot be a mental construct.
Knowledge is not of things but the truth, i.e. facts which are intangible and immaterial.
We cannot observe them but they are real nevertheless.

5. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?

No, because we can tell when we are being positive and creative - some actions have favourable outcomes, or produce things.

That means that goodness is not simply a concept but a fact. Being positive and creative are descriptions of the way we think and act. So there is a moral dimension to reality.

7. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?

Our observations of the behaviour of others, and the way they interact with us, should be able to tell us when we are getting along with our fellows. These things are not a fiction, nor are the emotions we experience as a result of social interaction and personal circumstances.

So justice is not simply a human idea but an objective fact. It is not an invention or convention but as real as, and more important than, material objects. The right to life exists whether we recognise it or not - and it stems from the immense value of life.

8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?

We have the ability to construct possible goals in our minds, through the aforementioned processes of synthesising information. We can then choose to act in such a way as to bring these goals about - in much the same way (though at a greater level of complexity) that a hungry tiger goes about acquiring food.

There are two difficulties here. If the mind is the functioning of the brain it functions entirely in the present and is limited to the present. Physical processes are not aware of the past or the future. So how the brain have hindsight and foresight?
All living beings are purposeful even if they have no brain. The simplest cell has a goal - survival - without being aware of what it is doing. Yet even the most complex, inanimate, molecular structure has no goal. How can this be explained biochemically?

9. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment. Fact or fiction?

However, as a somewhat more prosaic explanation than the one you’ve offered, when we interact with people whose company we enjoy, especially when we are in the intimate company of a person to whom we feel a sexual attraction, endorphins are released in the body, which result in feelings of euphoria, contentment, satisfaction - depending upon the extent to which we are affected.

Do you really believe the highest form of love can be explained in terms of sexual attraction?

That was certainly an interesting exercise in attempting a naturalistic explanation for ideas and emotions…especially considering that I am by no means a qualified scientist! :whacky:

I admire your courage.

 

[Leela]

That means that goodness is not simply a concept but a fact. Being positive and creative are descriptions of the way we think and act. So there is a moral dimension to reality.

I can’t make any sense of the claim that goodness is a fact, but we seem to both agree withy moral realism which is the view that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” have truth value. Moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to “scientific” statements.

So justice is not simply a human idea but an objective fact. It is not an invention or convention but as real as, and more important than, material objects. The right to life exists whether we recognise it or not - and it stems from the immense value of life.

The fact that justice is an ideal does not make it unreal. Human ideas are as real as rocks and trees. They are not physical entities, though they are correlated with such physical observations as those wavy lines on brain scans. The error of reductionism (and the sort of materialism that you want to criticize) is to claim that all thoughts REALLY are is electrical impulses. We agree that reductionism is an error. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that we have to determine what thoughts REALLY are beyond all appearances. Since they aren’t material you suppose that they must be supernatural. We don’t ever have to concern ourselves with what thoughts REALLY are. Thoughts are thoughts, and we experience thoughts all the time. We all know what they are. They are completely “natural.” We so-called materialists reserve “supernatural” for the null class of experiences that are beyond ordinary experience.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t make any sense of the claim that goodness is a fact, but we seem to both agree with moral realism which is the view that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” have truth value. Moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to “scientific” statements.

 

[AntiTheist]

My objection is not only to reductionism but to the dependence of all mental activity on physical processes. …] And in my opinion it leads to devastating consequences…

So your argument for not accepting what the evidence suggests – that thoughts are dependent upon physical brains – is that you don’t like the consequences. This is an invalid argument – reality isn’t determined by your opinion of it.

How about you give us some evidence? Give us an example of a mind not dependent upon a brain.

 

[tonyrey]

So your argument for not accepting what the evidence suggests – that thoughts are dependent upon physical brains – is that you don’t like the consequences.

It’s not a matter of not liking but of understanding the consequences - which you either don’t understand or don’t wish to accept…

How about you give us some evidence? Give us an example of a mind not dependent upon a brain.

How about your mind? Tell us how you control your brain? Or does your brain control you?!

 

[AntiTheist]

It’s not a matter of not liking but of understanding the consequences - which you either don’t understand or don’t wish to accept…

Logically, the consequences of a claim – in the sense that you mean it here – are irrelevant to the truth value of a claim.

How about your mind? Tell us how you control your brain? Or does your brain control you?!

I don’t “control [my] brain” – what kind of nonsense talk is this? The vast majority of the brain works unconsciously to regulate things in the body over which the conscious part has absolutely no control. Studies have shown that there are unconscious parts of the brain that make decisions before the conscious part becomes aware of “choosing” the decision. I don’t think any studies have ever found that the conscious mind can “control” the brain, and I’d be interested to see you cite studies that demonstrate this.

Now you’re the one making the claim here – let’s see an example of what you’re claiming. Give us an example of a mind that does not depend on a brain.

I mean, if what you’re claiming is true, then there must be observable examples of minds not dependent on the physical world.

 

[Sair]

Leela;5959625:

That is excellent news! At least you don’t believe moral propositions are fictions or merely emotional utterances.If they have an equally respectable epistemological standing with “scientific” statements they should not be ignored in any reasonable interpretation of life. In fact I believe they are more important than scientific statements because they are directly concerned with our well-being and happiness. Without science life is nasty, brutish and short but without morality it is even nastier, more brutish and much shorter

Was going to respond to an earlier post, but saw that Leela had already done an admirable job of it. What I will add is something I’ve said previously, which is that moral truths exist, but they do so in relation to physical entities - in particular, sentient physical entities who are capable of experiencing pleasure and suffering. I get the feeling that the kind of moral truths upon which you insist are ones that exist independently of the existence of the minds and bodies upon which they come to bear. If there were no sentient physical entities in the world, there would be no moral truths.

I admire and appreciate your acknowledgment that ideas are as real as rocks. My objection is not only to reductionism but to the dependence

of all mental activity on physical processes. Even though you regard the mind as a real entity it is not “a mind of its own”. I mean that thoughts and decisions are still the results of what happens in the brain. It is a one-way street as far as I can see. Thoughts cannot influence events in the brain because the brain causes thoughts! Can a computer programme change itself in a similar way to the way we think and change ourselves?
If not why not?

First of all, our brains are many orders of magnitude more complex than computers.

Secondly, it would appear there is a great deal of exchange between our actions, the structure and chemistry of the brain, and actions we may subsequently perform. Choices lead to actions, the results of which can lead to changes in the brain, which in turn lead to other choices, and so on. You may find this link interesting reading:

fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html

If they are completely natural they must be determined by the laws of nature and beyond our control. We only imagine we think for ourselves because in reality we think according to the way our brains have been programmed. I can’t see any loophole in this argument. And in my opinion it leads to devastating consequences…

But the developing brain can be programmed in certain ways by actions and interactions in the world. (name removed by moderator)uts beget outputs - what we do, the things we experience, the knowledge we accumulate from others, all affect the neural connections and chemical reactions in the brain, which affect our subsequent actions and choices. In a sense, we could think of ourselves as like self-moulding clay…

 

[tonyrey]

Logically, the consequences of a claim – in the sense that you mean it here – are irrelevant to the truth value of a claim.

That is sheer nonsense!

How about your mind? Tell us how you control your brain? Or does your brain control you?!

I don’t “control [my] brain” – what kind of nonsense talk is this?

If you don’t control your brain what do you control? Nothing? Are you a biological robot?

Now you’re the one making the claim here – let’s see an example of what you’re claiming. Give us an example of a mind that does not depend on a brain.

Every mind that exists! The only direct knowledge we have is of our thoughts, feelings and sensations. Our inner world is the only certain reality; all the rest is inference and surmise. Without a mind we don’t know anything whatsoever. We can never escape from our mind. It is the most fundamental and important fact of all. We can doubt the existence of everything else but we cannot reasonably doubt that we exist and are thinking. To deny our mind is to deny everything else because intangible reasoning is the sole means by which we reach any conclusions at all. To regard the mind as a product of matter is to put the cart before the horse - and before the rider.

I mean, if what you’re claiming is true, then there must be observable examples of minds not dependent on the physical world.

How can the mind possibly be observable when the mind is by definition intangible - like thoughts, emotions, decisions, purposes, facts, principles, explanations, mathematical proportions, logical relations and physical constants? Do you think everything real can be observed? Can you observe yourself? If you’re on trial in a court of law you can’t argue you’re not guilty because your mind is unobservable and depends on physical processes! If you’re guilty you might not finish up in prison but you’d certainly finish up in a psychiatric ward…

 

[wanstronian]

I’m getting a real sense of deja vu here…

For anybody considering engaging with Tony’s assertions, I advise you to read through this thread. You may just change your mind when you read some of the opinions he expresses, and how he defends them using circular logic and semantic diversions. I ultimately came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time attempting to continue.