Is materialism mumbo-jumbo?

[wanstronian]

That is hardly surprising because the only evidence materialists accept is physical!

I know of no other type of ‘evidence’ that meets suitable criteria for ‘evidence’ - observable, repeatable, predictable, independent. Please enlighten me if such non-physical evidence exists.

Precisely. They become merely “efficacious concepts” which are not categorical imperatives. They can be ignored or modified when convenient…

So what? My point is to show that you are wrong to suggest that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. They only are if you believe in something which means they must be. This makes your statement a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

If only matter exists everything must in principle be explicable in terms of matter. What else?

Apologies - I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that materialists claim that we can explain the universe, today, in material terms. Materialism is, of course, merely the belief that there is nothing other than the natural world.

It has everything to do with free will and human rights. We are related to apes but apes do not have free will or human rights. Why should we have rights and they have none if we are just advanced members of the ape family?

Sigh… because we have evolved to a level of consciousness whereby such concepts have value to us.

There is another conclusive reason why materialism is false. You have made it abundantly clear that you believe in free will.

Have I? When?

Yet if we are composed solely of matter we cannot possibly have free will because it would infringe the law of conservation of energy!

I think that’s a rather bold statement to make. If we do have free will, how does it conflict this law?

 

[Spirithound]

I know of no other type of ‘evidence’ that meets suitable criteria for ‘evidence’ - observable, repeatable, predictable, independent. Please enlighten me if such non-physical evidence exists.

This seems like a response to my post too

Why must all evidence satisfy this criteria?
I’m interested particularly whether you think philosophy or natural reason might be considered observable and independent?

 

[tonyrey]

I know of no other type of ‘evidence’ that meets suitable criteria for ‘evidence’ - observable, repeatable, predictable, independent.

I regret your criteria are not even satisfied by scientific theories. There is evolutionary, cosmological, archaeological and psychological evidence which is not observable, repeatable or predictable. Neither does personal, legal and medical evidence always satisfy all these criteria because every individual is unique.
I’m not sure what you mean by independent evidence in this context. Would the evidence of an independent witness fit the bill?

They become merely “efficacious concepts” which are not categorical imperatives. They can be ignored or modified when convenient…

So what? My point is to show that you are wrong to suggest that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. They only are if you believe in something which means they must be. This makes your statement a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

I don’t follow. Do you mean efficacious concepts can be categorical imperatives? I hardly think so!

Sigh… because we have evolved to a level of consciousness whereby such concepts have value to us.

Who are us? The majority? Even if those concepts are valuable for the majority the opinion or conduct of the majority does not necessarily determine what is true or right. Not only that: there must be a reason why they are valuable for us - unless you regard human beings as irrational!

Have I? When?I think that’s a rather bold statement to make.

You stated: “You are assuming that consciousness and free will are evidence of supernatural reality, but the fact is that there is no evidence that these phenomena are not caused by bio-chemical interactions in the brain…”
“these phenomena” implies that you regard** both** consciousness and free will as facts rather than appearances.
You also stated: “However that fact has no bearing on our free will or our human rights.” Why do specify “our free will” rather than just “free will”? I’m afraid you have to commit yourself one way or the other. If you have the misfortune to finish up in court - as I nearly did when accused of a serious crime I didn’t commit - you will have to explain why you weren’t responsible. A denial of free will wouldn’t impress either a judge or a jury!

If we do have free will, how does it conflict this law?

Free will implies a source of non-physical energy. Otherwise all our thoughts and decisions must be determined by physical events. Self-control implies the existence of a self rather than a brain… And what or where could the self be? A concept or an entity? This must be the outstanding problem for a materialist. I have never been given an answer which satisfies the materialist - if he/she is honest - let alone anyone else! That is formidable evidence that materialism is a misguided view of reality. (I used the term “mumbo-jumbo” because I wanted alliteration but it is rather crude. I think “Are materialists misguided?” is a better question.)

 

[Sair]

Free will implies a source of non-physical energy. Otherwise all our thoughts and decisions must be determined by physical events. Self-control implies the existence of a self rather than a brain… And what or where could the self be? A concept or an entity? This must be the outstanding problem for a materialist. I have never been given an answer which satisfies the materialist - if he/she is honest - let alone anyone else! That is formidable evidence that materialism is a misguided view of reality. (I used the term “mumbo-jumbo” because I wanted alliteration but it is rather crude. I think “Are materialists misguided?” is a better question.)

Considering that all of our energies come from physical processes - and the fact that if we cease the (name removed by moderator)ut of energy by, say, not eating (which I think you’ll agree is a physical process) then it has serious consequences for our ability to continue living, much less think clearly - why should free will be independent of physical energy? I think you might be extending the concept of freedom a little beyond its realistic scope. We all have the ability to make decisions that are detrimental to our functioning, but we also have the ability to notice that certain things are detrimental, and decide not to do those things. We also have the ability to decide whether to do things that we recognise to be beneficial. That is what free will means in the context of human life and social interaction.

As for the inscrutable ‘self’, our best guess at our present level of knowledge of brain functions is that what we think of as our selves are concepts, rather than entities separate from the material of our bodies and brains. The human brain is an intricate, highly-evolved and extremely complex information processor, and the ‘self’ may be understood as the label we give to the accumulated information of our sensory experiences - it’s a mental construct built from many different (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[Leela]

1. Materialism is the belief that everything consists of atomic particles - a1
2. Therefore the belief that everything consists of atomic particles consists of atomic particles - a2
3. If a belief is true it corresponds to reality
4. Therefore the correspondence between a1 and a2 consists of atomic particles (a3).
   How is a3 related to a1 and a2 from an “atomic particular” point of view?

Congrats. You’ve once again demonstrated that straw men are easy to refute.

 

[wanstronian]

This seems like a response to my post too

Why must all evidence satisfy this criteria?

Because if we can’t observe it, we don’t know if its real. If we can’t repeat it, we can’t show it to be consistently true. If we can’t use it to predict, then we can’t understand it fully. If it’s not independent, then it might just be subjective opinion.

I’m interested particularly whether you think philosophy or natural reason might be considered observable and independent?

I don’t think philosophy can be considered independent because it hinges on a set of ideas regarding the subject. Different people may have different ideas, so independence is lost. A simple (but obviously specious) example would be Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.

I suppose that philosophy may in principle be observable, but this isn’t enough to give the result any credibility from an evidential point of view.

If by natural reason you mean logic such as Aquinas’ five ‘proofs,’ then I’m not aware of any such reasoning that categorically proves materialism false. Any logic that attempts to do so makes assumptions that cannot be proven.

I hope I’ve got the gist of your question right. Philosophy is not my strong point.

 

[wanstronian]

I regret your criteria are not even satisfied by scientific theories. There is evolutionary, cosmological, archaeological and psychological evidence which is not observable, repeatable or predictable.

Care to cite an example?

Neither does personal, legal and medical evidence always satisfy all these criteria because every individual is unique.

Again, maybe you could provide an example rather than just saying, “It ain’t so.”

I’m not sure what you mean by independent evidence in this context. Would the evidence of an independent witness fit the bill?

Yes, depending on the reliability and number of such witnesses and the nature of the claim.

I don’t follow. Do you mean efficacious concepts can be categorical imperatives? I hardly think so!

I’m not following you down your rabbit hole this time. You made the claim that “moral, social, legal and political principles have remained immune to the ravages of materialism.” I pointed out that the two are not incompatible. If you want to try and change the subject again, as you have done in numerous threads before, go right ahead. I’m fed up with humouring your diversions though, so you’ll be on your own.

Who are us? The majority? Even if those concepts are valuable for the majority the opinion or conduct of the majority does not necessarily determine what is true or right. Not only that: there must be a reason why they are valuable for us - unless you regard human beings as irrational!

You know my answer to this, we’ve discussed it in your ‘economy’ thread.

You stated: “You are assuming that consciousness and free will are evidence of supernatural reality, but the fact is that there is no evidence that these phenomena are not caused by bio-chemical interactions in the brain…”
“these phenomena” implies that you regard** both** consciousness and free will as facts rather than appearances.

No. It doesn’t. Interestingly, I considered putting a, “(if you believe in them)” in my post as I suspected you might get the wrong idea, but I thought after our previous discussions I wouldn’t need to. But clearly you paid no attention when we talked about this before. Or you’re working towards a claim that I’m inconsistent.

You also stated: “However that fact has no bearing on our free will or our human rights.” Why do specify “our free will” rather than just “free will”? I’m afraid you have to commit yourself one way or the other. If you have the misfortune to finish up in court - as I nearly did when accused of a serious crime I didn’t commit - you will have to explain why you weren’t responsible. A denial of free will wouldn’t impress either a judge or a jury!

You continually fail to understand, despite having it explained to you in very simple terms by me and others, that the concept of an absence of free will does NOT mean that we are helpless souls watching from within as our treacherous bodies commit acts against our will. When you have grasped this simple concept, then we can talk.

Free will implies a source of non-physical energy. Otherwise all our thoughts and decisions must be determined by physical events.

Adequately answered by Sair.

Self-control implies the existence of a self rather than a brain…

Not true in the slightest. What is true is that someone who *already *believes that this is the case will take this concept as some sort of confirmation of their beliefs. And again you play with semantics - materialists don’t deny the ‘self’, they just claim a different origin.

And what or where could the self be? A concept or an entity? This must be the outstanding problem for a materialist.

Not at all, as we have discussed elsewhere. You do remember having these conversations? Or are you just playing to the crowd?

I have never been given an answer which satisfies the materialist - if he/she is honest - let alone anyone else! That is formidable evidence that materialism is a misguided view of reality. (I used the term “mumbo-jumbo” because I wanted alliteration but it is rather crude. I think “Are materialists misguided?” is a better question.)

And clearly, in the absence of any evidence of supernatural phenomena, they are not.

 

[tonyrey]

Congrats. You’ve once again demonstrated that straw men are easy to refute.

A gratuitous assertion like that - without any reasoning - is worthless…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey Free will implies a source of non-physical energy. Otherwise all our thoughts and decisions must be determined by physical events. Self-control implies the existence of a self rather than a brain… And what or where could the self be? A concept or an entity? This must be the outstanding problem for a materialist. I have never been given an answer which satisfies the materialist - if he/she is honest - let alone anyone else!

Considering that all of our energies come from physical processes - and the fact that if we cease the (name removed by moderator)ut of energy by, say, not eating (which I think you’ll agree is a physical process) then it has serious consequences for our ability to continue living, much less think clearly - why should free will be independent of physical energy?

How on earth can you possibly **know **that allour energies come from physical processes? The power of abstract reasoning is hardly in the same category as eating. Free will **must **be independent of physical energy because otherwise all our thoughts and decisions would be **caused by **neural events in the brain.

I think you might be extending the concept of freedom a little beyond its realistic scope. We all have the ability to make decisions that are detrimental to our functioning, but we also have the ability to notice that certain things are detrimental, and decide not to do those things. We also have the ability to decide whether to do things that we recognise to be beneficial. That is what free will means in the context of human life and social interaction.

You still haven’t explained what enables us to decide. What is the precise location of the control-centre in the brain?

As for the inscrutable ‘self’, our best guess at our present level of knowledge of brain functions is that what we think of as our selves are concepts, rather than entities separate from the material of our bodies and brains.

How can self-control be exercised by a concept??
It would amount to concept-control! Something is lacking…

The human brain is an intricate, highly-evolved and extremely complex information processor, and the ‘self’ may be understood as the label we give to the accumulated information of our sensory experiences - it’s a mental construct built from many different (name removed by moderator)uts.

How can sensory **information **possibly be a source of energy which implements our thoughts?

 

[MindOverMatter]

1. Materialism is the belief that everything consists of atomic particles - a1

What does one mean by everything? If everything was made of atomic particles there wouldn’t be any space to move would there?

1. Therefore the belief that everything consists of atomic particles consists of atomic particles - a2
2. If a belief is true it corresponds to reality
3. Therefore the correspondence between a1 and a2 consists of atomic particles (a3).
   How is a3 related to a1 and a2 from an “atomic particular” point of view?

This is where i am losing you. I think your trying to build up some kind of refutation but i can’t understand it. Can you please not use symbols to replace words. This is the one reason why i can’t stand Swinburne’s books. When i read an argument i don’t want to have to learn a whole new language in the process!.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

The theory of evolution for a start.

Neither does personal, legal and medical evidence always satisfy all these criteria because every individual is unique.

Again, maybe you could provide an example…

 Can you observe a person's state of mind, repeat it and predict it? It is accepted as sufficient evidence to determine innocence or guilt in a law court...

I’m not sure what you mean by independent evidence in this context. Would the evidence of an independent witness fit the bill?

Yes, depending on the reliability and number of such witnesses and the nature of the claim.

 And it need not be observable, repeatable or predictable...

You made the claim that “moral, social, legal and political principles have remained immune to the ravages of materialism.” I pointed out that the two are not incompatible.

Without explaining why… Efficacious concepts are hardly a sound foundation for moral, social, legal and political principle.

Who are us

? The majority? Even if those concepts are valuable for the majority the opinion or conduct of the majority does not necessarily determine what is true or right. Not only that: there must be a reason why they are valuable for us - unless you regard human beings as irrational! You know my answer to this, we’ve discussed it in your ‘economy’ thread.

Your answer is flawed. You believe there has been moral progress but only from our point of view - which amounts to saying there has been no moral progress!

You stated: "You are assuming that consciousness and free will are evidence

of supernatural reality, but the fact is that there is no evidence that these phenomena are not caused by bio-chemical interactions in the brain…"“these phenomena” implies that you regard** both** consciousness and free will as facts rather than appearances.

Or you’re working towards a claim that I’m inconsistent.
In other words you do not wish to commit yourself…

You also stated: "However that fact

has no bearing on our free will or our human rights." Why do specify “our free will” rather than just “free will”? I’m afraid you have to commit yourself one way or the other. If you have the misfortune to finish up in court - as I nearly did when accused of a serious crime I didn’t commit - you will have to explain why you weren’t responsible. A denial of free will wouldn’t impress either a judge or a jury! You continually fail to understand… that the concept of an absence of free will does NOT mean that we are helpless souls watching from within as our treacherous bodies commit acts against our will.

I refer you to my reply to Sair.

Free will implies a source of non-physical energy. Otherwise all our thoughts and decisions must be determined by physical events.

Adequately answered by Sair.

 I refer you to my reply.

Self-control implies the existence of a self rather than a brain…

Not true in the slightest… And again you play with semantics - materialists don’t deny the ‘self’, they just claim a different origin.

They claim that the self is produced by electrical impulses in the brain, dependent on the brain and therefore entirely controlled by the brain. Like any other machine it is a product not than a responsible agent capable of original thoughts and decisions. How could it initiate activity when every single mental event has a specific cause?

And what or where could the self be? A concept or an entity? This must be the outstanding problem for a materialist.

Not at all, as we have discussed elsewhere.

I have pointed out that a collection of mental events does not constitute a rational being. There is no director or supervisor, just a confused, irrational conflict of thoughts, images, ideas, sensations, impulses, urges, reflexes and instincts. “Irrational man” is the logical consequence of materialism.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

I don’t regard space (or time) as a “thing”. Let’s put it another way. If atomic particles did not exist there would be nothing. Do you agree?

This is where i am losing you. I think your trying to build up some kind of refutation but i can’t understand it. Can you please not use symbols to replace words.

A revised version for your benefit:

1. Materialism is the belief that reality is derived from atomic particles.
2. Therefore a belief is derived from a set of atomic particles!
3. Therefore the belief that reality is derived from a set of atomic particles is derived from a second set of atomic particles!!
4. A true belief corresponds to reality.
5. Therefore if materialism is true correspondence is a third set of atomic particles!!!
   6.Therefore if materialism is true the first set of particles is related to the second set of particles by the third set of particles. (!-3-2)
   How exactly are they related?

To put it in a nutshell:
Correspondence is not imaginary nor material but it is real. What does it consist of? The relationship between a belief and reality is a link between mind and matter. It is neither mental nor material but it is a fact we cannot ignore.

Even if you believe a belief is material the relationship between that aspect of matter and matter cannot be explained in terms of matter. If you think it can I shall be interested to know how. In the meantime I regard materialism as false.