Any Defenses of Materialism?

[1137]

I am looking for any defenses of materialism, especially material reductionism in the mind-body problem. I am not here to put forth or support claims, I am asking those who accept materialism to present the reasoning and evidence for doing so. I have yet to seen anything outside of burden of proof games when presenting my own opinion, with not a single materialist I have talked to online or in life being willing to present their evidence or reasoning. Also, I am looking for that which suggests only materialism, as a whole position. It is already understood that there is a correlation between the brain and body, but causation has yet to be shown. I am also looking for reasoning that does not start with the assumption of material reductionism and then fill in the blanks. Of great interest and importance would be physical evidence of the mind and its contents, the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, how a brain secretes chemicals but a mind feels and thinks, or how we can directly know the mind and the physical world only through that mind.

Thanks in advanced!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Obviously materialism is false and the mind is a projection from cosmic theater booth 13. It's a form of alien VR, very popular on Nebulous 6.

You are nothing more than good graphics.

 

[McBell]

Honestly, I fail to understand what materialism needs defended against.
As far as the alleged "mind-body" problem...
What problem?
I mean outside your inability to support the claim.

 

[sayak83]

I am looking for any defenses of materialism, especially material reductionism in the mind-body problem. I am not here to put forth or support claims, I am asking those who accept materialism to present the reasoning and evidence for doing so. I have yet to seen anything outside of burden of proof games when presenting my own opinion, with not a single materialist I have talked to online or in life being willing to present their evidence or reasoning. Also, I am looking for that which suggests only materialism, as a whole position. It is already understood that there is a correlation between the brain and body, but causation has yet to be shown. I am also looking for reasoning that does not start with the assumption of material reductionism and then fill in the blanks. Of great interest and importance would be physical evidence of the mind and its contents, the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, how a brain secretes chemicals but a mind feels and thinks, or how we can directly know the mind and the physical world only through that mind.

Thanks in advanced!

Is the refusal to see the correlation between brain processes and mind states as causation, a presuppositional bias against materialism? After all causation is correlation that has no observed exceptions.

It is quite clearly to me that a computer also thinks when it does its Logical and Arithmetic Operations. That's what thinking is. It may not be conscious that it is thinking, but it is thinking. So all I need to show are brain systems that are geared towards being informed about what parts of the brain is doing . Correct?

 

[Willamena]

A fine argument for materialism is that the terms we use to describe behaviors and aspects of mind (even 'mind' itself) are derived from 'folk psychology,' in other words ordinary people looking at themselves and creating terms to describe experiences, and passing those terms on through language and culture. They create these terms on the fly, without analysis or basis, from 'feeling' it out, and without thinking twice about the implications of creating a new term; in other words, without actual reasoning to support the use of that particular term. Most of the terms of mind are metaphoric, using pictures to bring the mind to life, to express everyday experiential living. Said folk might defend it by saying we've no better terms, or even no other terms at all, to depict the tragedy of a broken heart or the genius of bright idea. But the materialist, then, is right to say that that doesn't make them real. Promise and courage are actually put together from circumstances. Choice and responsibility are strung on the strings of a tentative thing called "I," to which no one can properly point. We've no better terms to use to describe these things, but then perhaps (in an ideal materialist world) these are things for which more productive terms could be invented to more properly describe them. This would change our relationship to the world and favour the materialist, but perhaps for the better.

 

[1137]

Honestly, I fail to understand what materialism needs defended against.
As far as the alleged "mind-body" problem...
What problem?
I mean outside your inability to support the claim.

So no.

 

[1137]

Is the refusal to see the correlation between brain processes and mind states as causation, a presuppositional bias against materialism? After all causation is correlation that has no observed exceptions.

It is quite clearly to me that a computer also thinks when it does its Logical and Arithmetic Operations. That's what thinking is. It may not be conscious that it is thinking, but it is thinking. So all I need to show are brain systems that are geared towards being informed about what parts of the brain is doing . Correct?

You're claiming correlation is causation?

 

[1137]

Obviously materialism is false and the mind is a projection from cosmic theater booth 13. It's a form of alien VR, very popular on Nebulous 6.

You are nothing more than good graphics.

So again, no defense.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You're hilarious. It's evident no amount of reasonable argumentation, evidence, logic or known science is going to sway you, and judging by your last attempt to build an argument(which was amusingly picked apart by no less than 2 people that actually agreed with your position but found your argument to weak to support you on) you aren't going to sway anyone else.

So what are you trying to do here?

 

[sayak83]

You're claiming correlation is causation?

Correlation that has no observed exceptions is inferred as causation. (Following Hume of course).

 

[Willamena]

You're claiming correlation is causation?

Actually, he said causation is correlation. You've reversed it.

 

[Skwim]

After all causation is correlation that has no observed exceptions.

You're claiming correlation is causation?

????

sayak83: causation is correlation (all gophers are animals)
1137:...... correlation is causation (all animals are gophers)​

 

[1137]

Correlation that has no observed exceptions is inferred as causation. (Following Hume of course).

My apologies, I misunderstood!

 

[1137]

You're hilarious. It's evident no amount of reasonable argumentation, evidence, logic or known science is going to sway you, and judging by your last attempt to build an argument(which was amusingly picked apart by no less than 2 people that actually agreed with your position but found your argument to weak to support you on) you aren't going to sway anyone else.

So what are you trying to do here?

I was asking if the alternate position had any support behind it, or it simply rejected opposing positions. I see now it is the latter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am looking for any defenses of materialism, especially material reductionism in the mind-body problem. I am not here to put forth or support claims, I am asking those who accept materialism to present the reasoning and evidence for doing so. I have yet to seen anything outside of burden of proof games when presenting my own opinion, with not a single materialist I have talked to online or in life being willing to present their evidence or reasoning. Also, I am looking for that which suggests only materialism, as a whole position. It is already understood that there is a correlation between the brain and body, but causation has yet to be shown. I am also looking for reasoning that does not start with the assumption of material reductionism and then fill in the blanks. Of great interest and importance would be physical evidence of the mind and its contents, the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, how a brain secretes chemicals but a mind feels and thinks, or how we can directly know the mind and the physical world only through that mind.

Thanks in advanced!

What do you mean by "materialism" and "material"?

As far as I can tell, the only sensible definition for "material" is "that which exists in reality". By this, the truth of materialism is a matter of tautology: materialism is true because everything that exists in reality exists in reality, and anything that doesn't exist in reality doesn't exist in reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am looking for any defenses of materialism, especially material reductionism in the mind-body problem. I am not here to put forth or support claims, I am asking those who accept materialism to present the reasoning and evidence for doing so. I have yet to seen anything outside of burden of proof games when presenting my own opinion, with not a single materialist I have talked to online or in life being willing to present their evidence or reasoning. Also, I am looking for that which suggests only materialism, as a whole position. It is already understood that there is a correlation between the brain and body, but causation has yet to be shown. I am also looking for reasoning that does not start with the assumption of material reductionism and then fill in the blanks. Of great interest and importance would be physical evidence of the mind and its contents, the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, how a brain secretes chemicals but a mind feels and thinks, or how we can directly know the mind and the physical world only through that mind.

Thanks in advanced!

Well I suppose this material venue for communication won't be nessessary.

 

[McBell]

So no.

Quite right.

Seems you are upset because you failed to support your claims against materialism.
You do know that this thread is like the ones in the Evolution vs Creation sub-forum where Creationists think that if Evolution is somehow "destroyed" that Creation magically takes it place.
Doesn't work that way for Creationism.
Doesn't work that way for whatever ism you are trying to promote.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Quite right.

Seems you are upset because you failed to support your claims against materialism.
You do know that this thread is like the ones in the Evolution vs Creation sub-forum where Creationists think that if Evolution is somehow "destroyed" that Creation magically takes it place.
Doesn't work that way for Creationism.
Doesn't work that way for whatever ism you are trying to promote.

Good point. On closer inspection, this argument could have been made by rusra or one of those other YEC guys, and nobody would have known the difference. I guess this is how it starts.

 

[McBell]

I wonder why 1137 skipped past post #5....

 

[Revoltingest]

So again, no defense.

I have one.....
It's useful.
I can't prove it's "the truth", but neither do I claim that.
As evidence, I offer the mind & body correlation.
Consider that the mind is altered or even destroyed
if portions of the brain are damaged. Without the brain,
we don't observe the mind.