Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Yerda]

Is there an argument for materialism or physicalism that is sometimes kind of "compelling"? Or at least an argument that is sound? If so, state it.

It is better than the alternatives.

 

[Nous]

It is better than the alternatives.

That isn't an argument. It's just your baldfaced assertion, and it's false. The findings and theories of modern physics long ago refuted the thesis that matter is primary. Matter isn't even one of the fundamental conserved quantities in physics.

As this thread well demonstrates, materialism/physicalism is incoherent drivel, an anti-science religion that some people need to believe for some goofed-up reason. I say that if one needs a religion, get one that isn't nonsensical and anti-science.

 

[Willamena]

That isn't an argument. It's just your baldfaced assertion, and it's false. The findings and theories of modern physics long ago refuted the thesis that matter is primary. Matter isn't even one of the fundamental conserved quantities in physics.

As this thread well demonstrates, materialism/physicalism is incoherent drivel, an anti-science religion that some people need to believe for some goofed-up reason. I say that if one needs a religion, get one that isn't nonsensical and anti-science.

It is an argument, and it's actually a good one. It's not false if it is actually what compelled Jaiket, or anyone, to materialism/physicalism.

Not everyone is skilled in the ways of quantum, nor do they have to be.

 

[Nous]

It is an argument

No, the sentence, "It's better than the alternatives," isn't an argument; it's a mere assertion, and it isn't true. Believing a proposition that has been refuted by the findings and theories modern physics, such as that "matter is primary," is not better than not believing falsehoods.

And logical argument consists of propositions from which another proposition is deduced. A sound argument consists of propositions that are true statements, by which another true statement is deduced. Jaiket's assertion is not even close.

 

[Willamena]

No, the sentence, "It's better than the alternatives," isn't an argument; it's a mere assertion, and it isn't true. Believing a proposition that has been refuted by the findings and theories modern physics, such as that "matter is primary," is not better than not believing falsehoods.

And logical argument consists of propositions from which another proposition is deduced. A sound argument consists of propositions that are true statements, by which another true statement is deduced. Jaiket's assertion is not even close.

That the proposition has allegedly been refuted by others doesn't factor into it, though. The individual's response and beliefs are based on his own information, not the whole world's.

 

[Nous]

That the proposition has allegedly been refuted by others doesn't factor into it, though. The individual's response and beliefs are based on his own information, not the whole world's.

Your two sentences here are gobbledygook. Jaiket's sentence is not an argument. Period.

You (et al.) need a primer on logic. Here is one by Paul Teller: http://tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/pdf/ But I fear it might be college level.

Here is Wikipedia's article on the rules of inference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference Click on each one (in the box on the top right). The articles should be self-explanatory.

Here is Wikipedia's article on syllogisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism It provides the formulations and examples of each of the 24 valid arguments.

When you have read and understood how to formulate a sound argument, please demonstrate it by stating an original argument (such as found in #376).

 

[Koldo]

Rather than engaging on Stoljar's free association exercise, the Wikipedia article you linked to simply defines "physical object" as matter. That eliminates the need to try to define the adjective "physical," which you haven't been able to provide a non-vacuous definition for anyway, and which no scientific discipline needs or defines.

And the thesis that everything consists of or supervenes upon matter is certainly false, according to modern physics.


Obviously you haven't shown that any metaphysical thesis whose fundamental posit is defined by a circular definition can be falsified. Prove that my Stoljar definition of pantheism can be falsified.


Define "physical".

P1: If the thesis that everything is or supervenes upon matter is true, then energy is or supervenes upon matter.
P2: Energy is neither matter nor supervenes upon matter.
C: Therefore, the thesis that everything is or supervenes upon matter is not true.

Modus tollens:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

How do you explain the intrinsic nature of matter and its constituents without 'energy' ? In what way would modern physics allow you to do that ?

Regarding your pantheism, I can't prove false what I don't comprehend. I still require the examples I've asked of you multiple times by now.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, within minutes of posting my reply to Jaiket, I will happily demonstrate that I am able to choose to spell "physicalism" backwards, and I will choose to do so in purple.

That you are able to choose anything is not proof for libertarian free will.
You need to prove that you could have chosen otherwise.
How do you intend to do that ?

 

[Koldo]

State your argument by which you conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true.

Not until you understand what is Physicalism.
There is no point in doing otherwise.

 

[Nous]

How do you explain the intrinsic nature of matter and its constituents without 'energy' ? In what way would modern physics allow you to do that ?

Nothing that I have said here depends on any explanation of "the intrinsic nature of matter" beyond the fact that matter is defined as any object that has mass and volume. I see no reason to go off on such tangents so long as you are unable to articulate an argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true.

Regarding your pantheism, I can't prove false what I don't comprehend.

You didn't understand the circular definitions of deific property that I provided!!? Imagine that! I went to the trouble to give you a "theory-based conception" of deific property and an "object-based conception" of deific property.

Perhaps didn't understand the concepts "of what it is for something (an object, an event, a process, a property) to be deific" for the same reason that you don't understand what it is for something to be physical.

 

[Nous]

That you are able to choose anything is not proof for libertarian free will.
You need to prove that you could have chosen otherwise.
How do you intend to do that ?

In #359, I defined "free will or volition" as "the ability to choose between available options," and, in #369, noted that "the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by the laws that govern "physical objects" (Wikipedia definition)." If you have any argument that I did not have the option of spelling "physicalism" (or any other word) forward in #380, then provide it.

How do you account for the fact that I was able to state beforehand that I would write "physicalism" backwards and do so in purple?

 

[Nous]

State your argument by which you conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true.

Not until you understand what is Physicalism.

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical or that everything supervenes on something that is physical.

Now, state your argument by which you conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true. Be sure to define "physical".

(BTW, lying about your reason for not stating an argument for physicalism doesn't fool anyone and doesn't make you look any more capable.)

 

[Koldo]

Nothing that I have said here depends on any explanation of "the intrinsic nature of matter" beyond the fact that matter is defined as any object that has mass and volume. I see no reason to go off on such tangents so long as you are unable to articulate an argument by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true.

It is not a tangent. According to the 'object-based conception', if 'energy' is 'the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents', then the existence of 'energy' doesn't prove Physicalism false.

I ask again: How do you explain the intrinsic nature of matter and its constituents without 'energy' ?
How does modern physics allow you to do that ?

You didn't understand the circular definitions of deific property that I provided!!? Imagine that! I went to the trouble to give you a "theory-based conception" of deific property and an "object-based conception" of deific property.

Perhaps didn't understand the concepts "of what it is for something (an object, an event, a process, a property) to be deific" for the same reason that you don't understand what it is for something to be physical.

And yet I am able to understand Physicalism through examples and context. Still waiting for your examples.

 

[Koldo]

In #359, I defined "free will or volition" as "the ability to choose between available options," and, in #369, noted that "the ability of individuals to choose between available options is not accounted for by the laws that govern "physical objects" (Wikipedia definition)." If you have any argument that I did not have the option of spelling "physicalism" (or any other word) forward in #380, then provide it.

How do you account for the fact that I was able to state beforehand that I would write "physicalism" backwards and do so in purple?

You need to be more precise when it comes down to free will discussions.
Compatibilists and libertarians use very similar language, and yet they hold considerably different positions.
The most important distinction is that one side holds that individuals could have truly chosen otherwise.

You had the option of spelling 'physicalism' differently, but you didn't have the 'will' to do it.
And since I hold that you can't will what you will, you couldn't have chosen otherwise.

But more importantly, regardless of which position is the accurate one, the sole fact that compatibilism can be true and that libertarian free will can be false is more than sufficient to refute the use of the latter's existence as an argument with any weight against physicalism.

 

[Koldo]

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical or that everything supervenes on something that is physical.

Now, state your argument by which you conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true. Be sure to define "physical".

(BTW, lying about your reason for not stating an argument for physicalism doesn't fool anyone and doesn't make you look any more capable.)

You are merely repeating what you've read. That won't do.
If you did comprehend what they meant you wouldn't be asking for a definition of 'physical' in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, there are 370 posts on this thread so far, and still no one has been able to articulate an argument in defense of materialism or physicalism.

An argument you're willing to pay attention to? No.

 

[Nous]

It is not a tangent. According to the 'object-based conception', if 'energy' is 'the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents', then the existence of 'energy' doesn't prove Physicalism false.

Perhaps you didn't see or weren't able to comprehend this the first dozen times I posted it:

#362:

Then I repeat what I already said several times here, e.g., in #351:

. . . according to the definition of "physical body" given in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the current theories and findings of physics demonstrate that the thesis of physicalism isn't true if "physicalism" means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies".​

#368:

If the thesis of physicalism means that everything consists of or supervenes on "physical bodies" (which are just matter, according to the definition in the Wikipedia article), then the thesis of physicalism is false, because energy is not matter, and matter is not primary to energy. Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.​

I ask again: How do you explain the intrinsic nature of matter and its constituents without 'energy' ?

Apparently what you are trying to say with your idea of the "intrinsic nature of matter" is that it is the quantity known as energy (E) that is primary, not matter. Right? No one has ever seen or touched energy. Energy is not a "physical object" according to the definition given in the Wikipedia article you linked to. Right?

And yet I am able to understand Physicalism through examples and context.

A lot of good it's done you. You obviously cannot provide a non-circular definition of the adjective "physical," on which the thesis of physicalism depends, and you obviously cannot articulate an argument that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is true.

 

[Nous]

You need to be more precise when it comes down to free will discussions.
Compatibilists and libertarians use very similar language, and yet they hold considerably different positions.
The most important distinction is that one side holds that individuals could have truly chosen otherwise.

You had the option of spelling 'physicalism' differently, but you didn't have the 'will' to do it.
And since I hold that you can't will what you will, you couldn't have chosen otherwise.

But more importantly, regardless of which position is the accurate one, the sole fact that compatibilism can be true and that libertarian free will can be false is more than sufficient to refute the use of the latter's existence as an argument with any weight against physicalism.

So you have no rational reason to conclude that when I posted #380 I was suddenly unable to choose to spell "physicalism" correctly, not with the letters in reverse order, and in regular black font that is used here rather than in purple font.

And you do not disagree that the ability to choose to between available options is not accounted for by any laws that govern "physical objects".

And you are unable to account for the fact that I stated beforehand that I would make a post with "physicalism" spelled backwards and in purple font, other than the fact that I chose to will my fingers to perform the required actions to accomplish that.

 

[Nous]

You are merely repeating what you've read. That won't do.
If you did comprehend what they meant you wouldn't be asking for a definition of 'physical' in the first place.

So you are unable to state a non-circulate definition of the adjective "physical," which is the fundamental posit of the thesis of physicalism.

And you are unable to state an argument that concludes that the thesis of physicalism is true.

Got it.

 

[Nous]

An argument you're willing to pay attention to?

Your inability to state an argument that concludes that physicalism is true has nothing to do with me. Right?