Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Koldo]

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.

None. For if there was any property not accounted by physical theories ( or supervenience ), Physicalism would be false.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Lol. Now the OP makes a thread in the setians dir where he says

A friend and I were discussing the idea of emergent dualism and what role it could play in Setianism. This is the view that while matter exists and gives rise to the mind, the mind is still a separate substance and hence the dualism.

*Picard face palm*

A friend huh? You sure it's not because you spent 3 threads arguing AGAINST that premise? What happened to the brain is a radio?

Lol, I'm done.

 

[Willamena]

None. For if there was any property not accounted by physical theories ( or supervenience ), Physicalism would be false.

Then, considering that "things" are a collection of properties, how is it incorrect to interpret that all things are physical?

 

[Koldo]

Then, considering that "things" are a collection of properties, how is it incorrect to interpret that all things are physical?

It is not. Why do you ask ?

 

[Koldo]

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.

What does the other side have ?

 

[1137]

What does the other side have ?

I don't know what other sides have, we haven't discussed them yet.

 

[Willamena]

It is not. Why do you ask ?

Because Physicalism, as given, would appear to state that all things are physical.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know what other sides have, we haven't discussed them yet.

They have nothing better. I can grant you that much.

 

[Koldo]

Because Physicalism, as given, would appear to state that all things are physical.

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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!

The only defense is that they are trying to provoke the argument for better physical explanations.
For instance, vitamin B certainly improves concentration, and alcohol inhibits the mind.
But, of course, it is the mind that decides to consume one or the other.

Essentially it seems impossible to escape dualism, but the problem still persists in:
to what extent the material effects the mind.

To often, people lazily slip into ignoring the physical aspects of consciousness
and dualism often degenerates into solipsistic non-materialism.

Actually the physical still effects consciousness to a far greater extent than any of us can realize.
So the defense is actually methodological:

By assuming a rigid materialist ontology, we stop the mind from degenerating into solipsism.

 

[1137]

They have nothing better. I can grant you that much.

Immaterial Monism likely has most of the same problems as materialism monism. Dualism, however, is a default position.

 

[Koldo]

Immaterial Monism likely has most of the same problems as materialism monism.

It is a lot worse.

Dualism, however, is a default position.

What do you mean by 'default' ? In what way is it 'default' ?

 

[atanu]

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

Okay, suppose there is. So, Christian fundamentalism has created this thread? Ha. Ha.

 

[atanu]

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.

This is good conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, that is correct.

How do you reconcile that with the claim made in post 281 that physicalism makes no claim about all things being physical?

 

[1137]

It is a lot worse.



What do you mean by 'default' ? In what way is it 'default' ?

A lot worse than "literally not one defense"? I highly doubt it. At the very least at least we can directly know the mind, giving immaterial monism a slight edge. By default I mean that dualism is the stance that accounts for all the evidence, makes the least assumptions, and is easily defended. I mean the most unbiased, intellectually honest stance is dualism.

 

[1137]

This is good conclusion.

No it is not.

 

[atanu]

No it is not.

Ha ha. It was sarcasm.
...

 

[1137]

Ha ha. It was sarcasm.
...

Hard to tell online haha.

 

[atanu]

The only defense is that they are trying to provoke the argument for better physical explanations.
For instance, vitamin B certainly improves concentration, and alcohol inhibits the mind.
But, of course, it is the mind that decides to consume one or the other.

Essentially it seems impossible to escape dualism, but the problem still persists in:
to what extent the material effects the mind.

To often, people lazily slip into ignoring the physical aspects of consciousness
and dualism often degenerates into solipsistic non-materialism.

Actually the physical still effects consciousness to a far greater extent than any of us can realize.
So the defense is actually methodological:

By assuming a rigid materialist ontology, we stop the mind from degenerating into solipsism.

The problem is never solvable in the current framework because manifest thoughts/objects, bundle of which goes by the name of mind, is being wrongly attributed with power of cognition and wrongly identified with the self.

The function of self is cognition: seeing and knowing. This is

The function of ego (which is a erroneous idea of self) OTOH, is to think, think, and think and worry.

These two functions happen not on same ontological level. Once it becomes clear that I am the seer-knower of body and the thoughts and I am not the body or the thoughts, the paradigm changes.