Material monism, science, mind and God

[benjamin1973]

Introduction
“Evolution” seems to be a word that comes up a lot, in forums about that subject as a competitor to Biblical or theistic accounts of creation, and recently in the thread about Pascal’s wager.

Underlying this idea is the scientific objective world world view in general, and a material monist world view in particular (i.e. there is only the material Universe, the things and forces in it, etc.) Please let me say now that I’d prefer to stick to mainstream science. I don’t want to bring in ID to counter evolution, I want to show that science, as it is most popularly approached, provides some support for the ideas of substance pluralism (matter + something else), and for at least a deistic view of God.

I’ll be taking the following positions:

1. a material world view has no decent explanation of psychogony (i.e. the existence of mind)
2. modern science points to a world that can no longer be well-described as “material.”

Definitions
I define “mind” as the ability to subjectively experience what things are like, i.e. the ability to experience qualia. I will exclude functional definitions that are used elsewhere. For example, “Consciousness is the ability to process and interact with the environment” is fine if you’re programming a robot, but ignores the philosophical question of subjective existence.

I define “material” as things, properties of things, and the forces that act on things. In other words, there is actual “stuff” which can be expressed in 3D space and time.

Discussion

1. I take the existence of subjective experience as mysterious. Material monists will generally wave toward the brain, claim that if they hit me with a sledgehammer, I’d no longer have a mind. This is true enough, but that is an efficient cause, not an ultimate explanation of why there is mind in the Universe, rather than a lack of it.
   There is currently not even a vaguely satisfying explanation of why or how material systems, under any configuration, or using any process, can be brought to experience the Universe subjectively.
2. It turns out that in modern physics, quantum particles cannot be represented unambiguously in 3D space and time. To call them “things,” I think, is now too much of a stretch. The only way in which they can be expressed is as wave functions, which I would define as elemental ideas rather than elemental things.

Double-slit experiments involving Quantum Erasers, show such squirrelly and counter-intuitive behaviors that it undermines a world view that anyone but a physicist would call “material.” In fact, although I’m agnostic, I think QM provides a good source of material for Christians looking to support their views.

 

[Bradskii]

As I’ve intimated elsewhere, proposing God as the answer to any given problem is not being entirely kosher. Because there are very many aspects of the Christian God that one must agree to AS WELL as He being the answer to the one specific question.

For example: Do you agree that God has given us consciousness?

If the answer is Yes, then you have already agreed to the existance of a God who is involved with us all personally, who sent His son to die for us, who will grant us everlasting life or eternal torment etc etc.

Whereas if the answer proposed is a deity and we go no further, then I see ‘a deity’ to be nothing more than a place holder for ‘we don’t know’. Or ‘we have yet to discover the answer’. Or ‘we can never know that’. You might as well class it as a word in some ancient language that means each of those comments depending who uses it.

Adayitee
Noun

• yet to be discovered
• unkown or unknowable answer

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but what i have to say is to do with the mind, and i argue that the existence of the mind is evidence against metaphysical naturalism, material monism, or the idea that all events are natural events.

Premise 1: If metaphysical naturalism is true then there is no Goal direction in nature, there are no purpose driven events. Physical nature is directionless. Cause and effect can only be defined as naturally occuring events…

Premise 2. If only material or physical reality exists then the mind is made of matter and is identical in nature to the operations of the brain. Which means that it is made up of only physical processes, and therefore it’s causal relationship with the world is essentially a combination of naturally occuring events.

Premise, 3. We know from experience that our minds act for a purpose, we act for meaningful ends that preserves our existence. we act with intention.

Conclusion: Premise 2, insofar as the claim that your mind and it’s causal relationship with the world is essentially a combination of naturally occuring events, is wrong if premise 3 is true.The conclusion of premise 1, that goal direction does not exist, is necessarily true if metaphysical naturalism is true. Premise 2, insofar as the material nature of the mind, is necessarily true only if metaphysical naturalism is true. But premise 3 contradicts metaphysical naturalism as defined in premise 1.Therefore one cannot say that only naturally occuring events exist or that the mind and it’s actions in the world is essentially and only a combination of naturally occurring events. The source of intentionality in the brain cannot be identical to the nature of the brain but rather something distinct working in conjunction with the brain or in conjunction with naturally occuring events. Thus metaphysical naturalism is necessarily false and so is Material Monism.

 

[benjamin1973]

In this thread at least, I’m not prepared to take God’s existence as axiomatic. The point of the thread is to examine the God idea and see if two particular issues support that idea:

1. the mind/matter problem;
2. QM tricky tricks.

It is my intent to introduce ideas that might be accepted by non-believers as evidence for God, and to examine whether an atheist position is actually more objective than a theist one.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m interested to know how QM fits in to the mind body problem. Thanks

 

[benjamin1973]

Where to start?

Let’s start with elemental particles like electrons. They cannot be expressed unambiguously in 3D space and time. A photon in a double slit experiment cannot be expressed as either a particle or a wave. So what is it? You can just say it’s a superposition of states and point to Unit 3 in an intro to modern physics, but what does that really mean?

To me, something which is ambiguous, and which is expressible only as a mathematical idea, is most likely exactly that-- an idea. Something which cannot said to be either here or there at a given moment in time cannot, I think, be said to have a material existence, at least as a thing.

Add the observer effect, especially with resolution of superpositions after a delay, and ask yourself-- how did the Universe in the past know how things would resolve in the present? Where is that past state “stored” such that it can be resolved at a later time?

I don’t think any of this works in a world view of only things, their properties, and the forces that act on them.

 

[benjamin1973]

The material monist view requires the following position: that subjective experience is only the experience of brain states, which are arised at through purely deterministic means. Any sense of agency and free will is essentially illusory: you are experiencing a certain kind of brain processing that feels like free will-- but actually isn’t. It’s not so easy to prove that this position is wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree. Premise 3 is conditional on the subjects agreement that they experience goal direction and intetionality. The materialist monist as you say would have to reject direct experience of intentionality or free-will. But why stop there? Why only reject one object of our experience, why not reject the objective existence of physical objects until we can prove that for certain too? The Materialist monist simply demands that we reduce everything to materialism. It seems that a material monist is a bit choosy in what they accept as their everyday experience. I wonder why? At least idealism is consistent. Freewill seems just as obvious as the objective reality of the universe.

Also when you remove intentionality or free-will, a gargantuan problem is left in it’s place. It would mean that ever since the creation of language, every conversation including every meaningfully consistent dialog we have ever had (the kind of dialog that implies goal direction and intentionality) is ultimately the inevitable result of a combination of blind directionless natural processes.

That doesn’t make sense to me especially in a universe with only a mixture of chance, randomness and deterministic events. Its unintelligible. All this dialog would some how exist dormant in our dna and when actualized be meaningfully consistent with other peoples dialog, and this would be going on for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. That’s an incredibly wild belief. Also, if we are mere passive observers there really is no credible reason to think that we are in control of our thoughts or over rational agreement or disagreement with any argument, so any attempt becomes void because we have no control over our thought processes. We literally have no way of knowing if anything our brain feed us is true.

What a bizarre worldview. I honestly think that it is the materialist monist that has the responsibility of proving that position. It’s not me that needs to disprove it, because just like the universe our experience of intentionality and rational thought does not seem in any way like an illusion. So what is their justification for thinking so?

Is that belief really worth it just to avoid rejecting the materialist world-view for fear of entertaining religious notions like a soul or immaterial reality?. Loool.I’m sorry but it’s absurd to entertain such a possibility, even if there were the tiniest of chance it might be true.

 

[Vonsalza]

As I’ve intimated elsewhere, proposing God as the answer to any given problem is not being entirely kosher.

I see what you did there.

Adayitee
Noun

• yet to be discovered
• unkown or unknowable answer

Well, that’s awfully close-minded. Maybe there actually is a diety, Bradski.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

As I’ve intimated elsewhere, proposing God as the answer to any given problem is not being entirely kosher.

I see what you did there.

Adayitee
Noun

• yet to be discovered
• unkown or unknowable answer

Well, that’s awfully close-minded. Maybe there actually is a diety, Bradski.

There may be. I am open to being convinced. But as you know, I am well versed in the specific attributes of one or more particular gods and I have decided that those specific gods do not exist.

 

[Bradskii]

If you revise premise 1.to say ’ There is no ULTIMATE goal’ then I’d agree.

 

[IWantGod]

To me, something which is ambiguous, and which is expressible only as a mathematical idea, is most likely exactly that-- an idea. Something which cannot said to be either here or there at a given moment in time cannot, I think, be said to have a material existence, at least as a thing.

This is interesting. I need to fin some good books on it.

Add the observer effect, especially with resolution of superpositions after a delay, and ask yourself-- how did the Universe in the past know how things would resolve in the present? Where is that past state “stored” such that it can be resolved at a later time?

Are you saying that solid definite objects don’t exist in anyone state until we observe it? Are you also tempted to say this applies to the universe as a whole and that before human minds existed, a different observer would have to exist at the moment of the big bang in order for the universe to arrive at the state we have now. Am i right?

 

[Vonsalza]

There may be. I am open to being convinced.

I think as has been discussed, it seems the only proof you’re willing to accept is material.

Non-material gods would likely lack unambiguous material proof.

The arguments for god are typically metaphysical - a category that can be denied to exist all together.

I guess it boils down to what you axiomatically accept as true. If your base-set of axioms don’t include the metaphysical, then there probably isn’t anything I can do to convince you that a god exists since I really need that particular building block in order to craft theistic rhetoric.

Although without it; enter the crisis of meaning that we briefly batted around a week or so ago…

But as you know, I am well versed in the specific attributes of one or more particular gods and I have decided that those specific gods do not exist.

Careful Bradski.

That’s a posit. And for rationalists, those things have rules. A burden of sorts.

 

[benjamin1973]

What’s a “solid definite object”? A chair?

Let me say this. A chair, for sure, doesn’t exist in the sense that I experience it. That solid wood is 99.999999% empty space. And even the .000001% is not expressible as anything more than wave functions-- the particles cannot be represented unambiguously in 3D space.

I didn’t intend to directly imply what you are, which is that a God was required in order either to manifest, or to enable the manifestation, of the Universe. However, the connection between material and observer in the Universe, as studied in science, is strong and quirky enough that I’d say it’s a reasonable thing to speculate.

 

[IWantGod]

Let me say this. A chair, for sure, doesn’t exist in the sense that you experience it. That solid wood is 99.999999% empty space. And even the .000001% is not expressible as anything more than wave functions-- the particles cannot be represented unambiguously in 3D space.

Yeah! I keep seeing this on certain science blogs and videos i have seen. but how does the 000001% from our perspective appear to us as a solid chair? That is strange. Something i would expect if we were actually existing inside a simulation. I’m not saying that we are because i don’t think that, but hopefully you know what i mean.

 

[benjamin1973]

Scientifically, we ARE in a simulation-- a symbolic representation that our brain forms in response to complex information from the senses.

 

[IWantGod]

Scientifically, we ARE in a simulation-- a symbolic representation that our brain forms in response to complex information from the senses.

When you put it like that, i have no choice but to agree with you. But then why does reality appear a particular way to us that we can all agree on for the most part. Forget the quantitative aspect, but where does the qualitative aspect come from, how things look and feel.

The more we talk the more it seems like we are heading toward something that is almost like Berkeley’s idealism. I think your view accepts an objective reality, but what we perceive is what the senses creates for us.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/

“Idealism and Immaterialism. Berkeley’s famous principle is esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived. Berkeley was an idealist. He held that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind-dependent.”

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

There may be. I am open to being convinced.

I think as has been discussed, it seems the only proof you’re willing to accept is material.

Non-material gods would likely lack unambiguous material proof.

The arguments for god are typically metaphysical - a category that can be denied to exist all together.

I guess it boils down to what you axiomatically accept as true. If your base-set of axioms don’t include the metaphysical, then there probably isn’t anything I can do to convince you that a god exists since I really need that particular building block in order to craft theistic rhetoric.

Although without it; enter the crisis of meaning that we briefly batted around a week or so ago…

But as you know, I am well versed in the specific attributes of one or more particular gods and I have decided that those specific gods do not exist.

Careful Bradski.

That’s a posit. And for rationalists, those things have rules. A burden of sorts.

If any proposed deity doesn’t interact with the material world, then to all intents it doesn’t exist and we can ignore it.

If it is meant to interact, then we can investigate to see if any material changes are naturally caused or supernaturally caused.

Naturally, a lot of people would say, presented with a material event that seems to have no natural cause, that we simply aren’t yet able to determine said cause.

Returning to the Christian God, it isn’t that we have to accept one single event. We have to accept the whole box and dice. The whole ten yards. The complete story with virgin births and resurrected sons and heaven and hell and the fall and…well, it does go on.

The problem I have always found with Christianity, even from a very young age, was that I was always thinking: ‘Well, that episode sounds reasonable and I guess that bit could be true but, gee…I have to believe ALL of this?’ And it all starts to crumble.

The best evidence is the simplest evidence. If you are being tried for murder, your best bet is to say you weren’t at the scene. Period. But if you concoct a story where you went shopping and then met an old friend and you went to the game together and had a beer and a bite to eat before taking the bus home, then if a couple of those events sound doubtfull to the jury then they will begin to doubt everything.

 

[Vonsalza]

If any proposed deity doesn’t interact with the material world, then to all intents it doesn’t exist and we can ignore it.

We’ve been over this too.

There’s a lot of folks who would argue that this deity either interacts with or IS the world. If that’s the case, then proving that the deity exists is roughly as difficult as proving Australia exists.

Prima facie, you think it would be the easiest thing in the world to do. But really it isn’t at all if I’m not willing to grant you many concessions.

Over-arching all this, I know you know the inherent problems raised by the suggestion that “if it’s not material, then it isn’t real”.

‘Well, that episode sounds reasonable and I guess that bit could be true but, gee…I have to believe ALL of this?’ And it all starts to crumble.

I respect that. The more complex a logical syllogism is, the easier it is the break.

But this approach to religion may be a bit under-baked - no insult intended. First of all, “I have to believe ALL of this… per whom?”

I certainly don’t believe in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Although I guess in a world where Donald Trump is the American president, anything is possible.

Have you considered the possibility that the world religions might possibly be culturally biased emulations of a God that just doesn’t like to talk too much?

Plenty of Catholic Christians here would balk at the concept. But as an atheist, you probably recognize that such folks certainly don’t have the “god market” cornered, right?

 

[Bradskii]

I would say that if it’s not natural then it’s supernatural. If something interacts with us in a way that we are certain is not natural, then we have a supernatural entity.

And I assume we don’t need to discuss miraculous healings or Mary-on-a-rooftop or dancing suns and prophesies. We can leave those to the less well informed.

Now the sense that life has an ultimate purpose is natural. The feeling that there is more than what we perceive is natural. The conviction that there is life after death is natural. The need for there to be something greater than ouselves to which we can turn for help and comfort is entirely natural.

This has been going on since we came out of the trees. Christianity is one of the more recent organised attempts to make sense of it all. But is entirely natural.

So all religions are a culturally based attempt to find meaning. All of them entirely natural. That none of their various gods actually exist doesn’t matter in the slightest. They don’t need to. As you know, none of the claims that all these other religions made about their gods were true.