Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Koldo]

So your use of the adjective "mental" to define "physical" is also vacuous, undefinable?

I obviously do know what the definition of "physicalism" is. I quoted it above from Stoljar's article: "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical."

It is a non-vacuous definition of the adjective "physical" that you haven't been able to provide or cite.

If you don't understand what is meant by 'physical' in the definition of 'Physicalism' then you don't understand 'Physicalism' at all.
And I am afraid I can't explain it any better than I have done so far.

BTW, did you notice that the Wikipedia article "physical body" that you linked to does not contain a single citation whatsoever? I don't recall ever seeing another Wikipedia article that had no source whatsoever for its assertions.

Did you also notice that according to the defintion of "physical body" given in the first sentence of the article, the current theories and findings of physics demonstrate that the thesis of "physicalism" isn't true:

In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body or object; also: concrete object) [citation needed] is an identifiable collection of matter, which may be more or less constrained by an identifiable boundary, [citation needed] to move together by translation or rotation, in 3-dimensional space.[citation needed]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

Obviously "energy" is but one example of a phenomenon that isn't a "collection" of objects that have mass and volume (i.e., matter).

It isn't my fault that you are unable to defend the thesis of materialism or physicalism. It's because the thesis has been proven empirically false (in the first case) or is vacuous (in the second case).

Physicalism doesn't state that the only things that exist are physical objects.
Read this part again:

"The theory-based conception:
A property is physical iff it either is the sort of property that physical theory tells us about or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property that physical theory tells us about."

"The object-based conception:
A property is physical iff: it either is the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents."

 

[Koldo]

The reason why I say all the paradigms are ultimately non-falsifiable is because regardless of the position taken, various evidences can be interpreted as supporting multiple paradigms. It is something I find rather fascinating. All the data can be made to fit whatever ontological philosophy one subscribes to. This is not atypical of ontology, really, as it deals with questions that must rest on various unverifiable assumptions. There's no proving these things wrong; they are perspectives one chooses to adopt... or doesn't. IMHO, the best "defense" of materialism is "this is the worldview I prefer, and I am going to use it. Deal with it."

I agree with you, except for the last part. I think that although it ultimately ends up with 'I prefer this one rather than that one', there are lines of reasoning that can be offered to make a case for picking one over the other.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree with you, except for the last part. I think that although it ultimately ends up with 'I prefer this one rather than that one', there are lines of reasoning that can be offered to make a case for picking one over the other.

Yes, that is true. Pardon if otherwise was implied, though I'd remind us that there are certainly more than two stories. I suppose for me, I'm not so much interested in making the case to others. More interested hearing the stories and aiming to understand them, at least on my better days.

 

[1137]

Sigh.

Again, not according to the definition you provided. Perhaps you should find a definition of the word that agrees with what you are saying?

"Matter is all that exists" is not an axiom of materialism, as per your(or any afaik) definition of the word.

Uh what?

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Substance Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.

Once again your lack of education on even basic topics shines through.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. Why can you not understand that 'are results of' and 'can be reduced to' mean different things?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

You could at least remain consistent with your own sourced definitions. You are really bad at this

 

[Willamena]

If you don't understand what is meant by 'physical' in the definition of 'Physicalism' then you don't understand 'Physicalism' at all.
And I am afraid I can't explain it any better than I have done so far.



Physicalism doesn't state that the only things that exist are physical objects.
Read this part again:

"The theory-based conception:
A property is physical iff it either is the sort of property that physical theory tells us about or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property that physical theory tells us about."

"The object-based conception:
A property is physical iff: it either is the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents."

Why is "or logically" in brackets?

 

[1137]

I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. Why can you not understand that 'are results of' and 'can be reduced to' mean different things?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

You could at least remain consistent with your own sourced definitions. You are really bad at this

I literally copied the same definition several times. Yet again I'm reminded nothing can be gained from you!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I literally copied the same definition several times. Yet again I'm reminded nothing can be gained from you!

Yes you did, which makes it all the more astounding you somehow can't grep what it means, even after having it broken down to you several times.

I do salvage some amusement from this though. Page 15 and it's revealed that you don't understand what materialism means, and have been arguing against a straw man this whole time. What a twist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason why I say all the paradigms are ultimately non-falsifiable is because regardless of the position taken, various evidences can be interpreted as supporting multiple paradigms. It is something I find rather fascinating. All the data can be made to fit whatever ontological philosophy one subscribes to.

That's not really what's going on.

If the anti-materialists were being honest, it might be... and it would be a resolvable issue. There are plenty of other situations where people will argue that a population is made up of two distinct groups; if they're right, this will be manifested in some difference between the characteristics of the members of the two groups. I mentioned subspecies before: plot the characteristics of a species on a graph, and if they really are distinct subspecies, the graph will show two distinct blobs instead of one homogenous blob.

But AFAICT, the disagreements between the materialists and the anti-materialists don't end up being about how to fit the data to some paradigm: I've never seen materialists and anti-materialists agree on the data but disagree on whether to categorize it as "material" or "immaterial"; the disagreements are about the data itself. Take this whole "existence of the mind" thing that was raised in the OP: when I point out that the evidence suggests that "the mind" is what we call the effects of brain activity, 1137 didn't respond with "yes, but that brain activity is immaterial"; he disputed the facts of my claim. He also implied - at least to me - that he believed that if I was right, the mind would be material.

The disagreements between materialists and anti-materialists don't tend to be about how to categorize that which exists; the disagreements are over what exists and how we can know it. The differences between the two groups aren't ontological; they're epistemological.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you say "All the evidence we have indicates that "the mind" is just "what the brain does". If your claim was true it would be different,

It is true.

but this thread has brought forth the serious flaws in the so called evidence.

Not really.

At best we have evidence of correlation between brain states and conscious states.

We have more than that, but I'm glad that you acknowledge the correlation... which even by itself is evidence for brain activity causing consciousness.

BTW: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-brain-is-not-a-receiver/

 

[1137]

Yes you did, which makes it all the more astounding you somehow can't grep what it means, even after having it broken down to you several times.

I do salvage some amusement from this though. Page 15 and it's revealed that you don't understand what materialism means, and have been arguing against a straw man this whole time. What a twist.

Haha whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[1137]

It is true.

Not really.


We have more than that, but I'm glad that you acknowledge the correlation... which even by itself is evidence for brain activity causing consciousness.

BTW: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-brain-is-not-a-receiver/

If it's true you could show how! Why have you waited so many pages, bring forth your proof! We have all these pages and the ONLY evidence of materialism we have seen is a fallacy of assuming correlation is causation. Present your proof or stop wasting our time.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Haha whatever you need to tell yourself.

Again, no actual argument against what I said. You have misunderstood the thing you are trying to attack, just admit it.

Being intellectually dishonest isn't getting you anywhere. Your refusal to address any of the points leveled against you is laughable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's true you could show how! Why have you waited so many pages, bring forth your proof! We have all these pages and the ONLY evidence of materialism we have seen is a fallacy of assuming correlation is causation. Present your proof or stop wasting our time.

Speaking of wasting time: why are you looking to a random collection of non-experts on the internet for information on cutting-edge neuroscience? It seems to me that you're just trying to create a situation that will reinforce your biases.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Anyone else see the correlations between this thread and any thread ever by a Christian fundamentalist attacking evolution?

Let's count them.

OP doesn't understand the subject he is attacking

OP demands evidence, gets it in spades yet will not acknowledge any.

OP has no cogent argument or evidence for his own position, yet believes ham fisted attempts at discrediting the 'other guy's will somehow validate what he is selling.

God of the gaps

OP refuses to respond directly to arguments, instead resorting to insults and copouts.

OP ignores all sources that disagree with him.

Did I miss any?

 

[Willamena]

Physicalism doesn't state that the only things that exist are physical objects.
Read this part again:

"The theory-based conception:
A property is physical iff it either is the sort of property that physical theory tells us about or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property that physical theory tells us about."

"The object-based conception:
A property is physical iff: it either is the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents."

Perhaps it would help if you clarify what sort of properties do not metaphysically (or logically) supervene on the sort of property that physical theory tells us about, or what sort of properties physical theory does not tell us about.

 

[1137]

Speaking of wasting time: why are you looking to a random collection of non-experts on the internet for information on cutting-edge neuroscience? It seems to me that you're just trying to create a situation that will reinforce your biases.

Well I was hoping to be presented with some, thinking arguments would be backed up by research or academic work. Sadly it didn't even come close.

 

[1137]

Anyone else see the correlations between this thread and any thread ever by a Christian fundamentalist attacking evolution?

Let's count them.

OP doesn't understand the subject he is attacking

OP demands evidence, gets it in spades yet will not acknowledge any.

OP has no cogent argument or evidence for his own position, yet believes ham fisted attempts at discrediting the 'other guy's will somehow validate what he is selling.

God of the gaps

OP refuses to respond directly to arguments, instead resorting to insults and copouts.

OP ignores all sources that disagree with him.

Did I miss any?

I honestly feel sad for you. I hope you work out whatever is wrong, but I can't help you and I'm sick of your trolling. I'm going to utilize that ignore feature.

 

[1137]

So to sum up we have correlation between the brains and mind. No mechanism, no means of addressing the philosophical issues of materialism. Just a claim based on correlation with no further support. /thread.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I honestly feel sad for you. I hope you work out whatever is wrong, but I can't help you and I'm sick of your trolling. I'm going to utilize that ignore feature.

Oh ya!
OP outright ignores people that come too close to ruffling their faith.

Now the list is complete.