Any Defenses of Materialism?

[George-ananda]

Yes: there's nothing intrinsic to the materialist position that would stop a materialist from accepting the existence of, say, ghosts. The materialist would just infer that ghosts are rooted in some sort of (potentially undiscovered) physical phenomena.

Where a materialist would run into trouble is accepting the excuses that ghost afficionados often give for the lack of evidence for ghosts (e.g. "they're non-physical, so they don't leave physical evidence... but they really do exist").


Depends what you mean by "physical brain".

Could a materialist accept that the organ in our skulls is just a transceiver and it communicates with something external that does the actual thinking? Sure. A materialist would just believe that the "something external" and the means of communication between it and the brain are physical. Maybe relying on physical principles that are currently unknown to us, but still physical.


No, I'm just not playing along with your straw man.

A materialist is someone who infers that everything that exists in reality is physical. It doesn't mean someone who closed-mindedly assumes that nothing exists besides the physical things he already knows about.

Enough said. I think you are trying to carve the term 'materialism' to your liking and beyond its intended meaning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Enough said. I think you are trying to carve the term 'materialism' to your liking and beyond its intended meaning.

Funny: I think you're trying to unreasonably narrow the definition in order to make materialists out to be fools.

I mentioned a number of ways that the materialist mindset incorporates new ideas. It isn't the static thing you're making it out to be.

If you can demonstrate that something actually exists, materialists will accept that it really does exist. This has happened over and over again with things that are invisible to us and that completely shatter old paradigms. If this weren't the case, materialists would reject everything from the germ theory of disease and radio to the existence of quarks and quantum mechanics.

 

[sayak83]

Wow, so asking you to defend your position is ranting in your eyes? I guess I always new materialism was a fundamentalist position, but nice to have proof! Fine, let's address the one single point you have to make again, and see how well it works without addressing my questions.

1. If there is conscious thought there is brain activity.

2. If there's is no conscious thought there is no brain activity (which you yourself have said is false, but I'll ignore that).

3. If there is brain activity there is conscious thought (again you've stated this is false but let's ignore that).

4. If there is no brain activity there is no conscious thought.

First off this doesn't even work with your reasoning, but I'll ignore that. Second, it could simply suggest that consciousness causes brain states, not the other way around. You haven't even SUGGETED a mechanism so there's no reason to assume the brain is preceding the conscious states. Further you haven't addressed that we only know the brain through the mind, so you're making a leap in saying the brain is the cause. Then fourth of course, correlation isn't causation.

1) Why are you ignoring the fact that only a subset of brain activities are correlated with consciousness? I am only discussing the relation between
(A) States of consciousness
AND
(B) Specific subset of characteristic neural patterns correlated with these states of consciousness as observed by brain scientists. The Neural correlates of consciousness.

Obviously there are a whole plethora if brain states correlated with the subconscious levels of the mind that are not correlated with conscious states of the mind. There is no disagreement there, and those brain activities will fail the steps 1)-4)..obviously.

2) I am NOT arguing for causation. I am arguing for identity (or equivalence). I am NOT saying B causes A. I am saying B is identical to (or equivalent to) A. Neither weak correlation, nor causation will satisfy the arguments (1)-(4) in general. Only identity or equivalence relations in general satisfy these relations. This is easy to establish. Consider the case that smoking (A) causes Cancer (B). Such a causal relationship will not satisfy 1)-4) . The only kinds that do satisfy are identities like Electricity (A) is a flux of charged particles (B).

 

[Willamena]

I think that it cuts both ways.

Most materialists often do not distinguish between cause and effect and as perpetual bias superimpose one effect after another on the cause. One example is how Theory of Evolution is extrapolated to origin of life and consciousness, without any concrete proof. Another is, how many think that there are machines that have passed Turing's test already and translate that erroneous idea into a belief that machines exhibit consciousness. It is another matter that even if a machine passed Turing's test a conscious agent will be needed to know and certify that.

But this is the very nature of nature -- to enjoy the subject-object division to the hilt.

As an aside, the Turig test is indeed something that computers can pass--what is questionable is whether it is a proper indicator of intelligence. Google the "Chinese Room" test.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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!

Did the world exist before you were born?

 

[Willamena]

A materialist is someone who infers that everything that exists in reality is physical. It doesn't mean someone who closed-mindedly assumes that nothing exists besides the physical things he already knows about.

You describe a physicalist/realist. Not all physicalists need be realists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would circuitry in PC exist if not needed for entertaining output?

Whuh?

Why should the meat computer allow its destruction, if it was the master of consciousness?

Meat computers do often control the attached body so as to avoid their own destruction.
But some things are unavoidable, eg, death due to old age.

I've really nothing else productive to add.

 

[atanu]

Never heard of a person being unconscious or in deep sleep? Now you are redefining terms to suit your purpose. People lose their consciousness every day during deep sleep and if they have concussion, get anesthesia, fall into coma.....
Thinking does not require self-consciousness.

I have been unconscious and I have been in deep sleep. That is the point. I exist in different forms but what is my true form? Water exists as solid, liquid or vapour. What is its true form? Swarupa?

Brain is an object of waking state phenomenon. It is not an object in other two forms of consciousness. When I observe a dreaming or sleeping man, it is my waking state observation. It does not correspond to the nature of consciousness from the first person perspectives.

Take time to contemplate on this. Consider the forms of awarenesses and forms of corresponding universes in waking, dreaming, and sleeping states from first party perspective.

If you do so, you may intuit how there is nothing solid and graspable actually. It is mind/awareness taking on different forms. There is nothing worthy of clinging to. And you will realise that forms that we consider to be solid and graspable are forms of awareness only.

And even as taste of mango cannot be explained, the aforesaid also cannot be explained. The point is not to score points but to gain a first person perspective of what our Swarupa, true form is.

 

[atanu]

Whuh?

Computers exist to serve our desires. What about the meat computer?

Meat computers do often control the attached body so as to avoid their own destruction.
But some things are unavoidable, eg, death due to old age.

I've really nothing else productive to add.

So, is it okay to claim in absolute fashion that brain states cause consciousness, when we do not know how consciousness manifests and disappears?

 

[Revoltingest]

Computers exist to serve our desires. What about the meat computer?

It exists.
I don't know why.
I merely observe that it is.
Are these questions a counter-argument?

So, is it okay to claim in absolute fashion that brain stares cause consciousness, when we do not know how consciousness manifests and disappears?

To not understand how something works is OK with me.
The material world is complicated.

 

[atanu]

It exists.
I don't know why.
I merely observe that it is.
Are these questions a counter-argument?

To not understand how something works is OK with me.
The material world is complicated.

Not counter arguments but pointers only. "I observe ..... ", describes what I have tried to say.

 

[1137]

1) Why are you ignoring the fact that only a subset of brain activities are correlated with consciousness? I am only discussing the relation between
(A) States of consciousness
AND
(B) Specific subset of characteristic neural patterns correlated with these states of consciousness as observed by brain scientists. The Neural correlates of consciousness.

Obviously there are a whole plethora if brain states correlated with the subconscious levels of the mind that are not correlated with conscious states of the mind. There is no disagreement there, and those brain activities will fail the steps 1)-4)..obviously.

2) I am NOT arguing for causation. I am arguing for identity (or equivalence). I am NOT saying B causes A. I am saying B is identical to (or equivalent to) A. Neither weak correlation, nor causation will satisfy the arguments (1)-(4) in general. Only identity or equivalence relations in general satisfy these relations. This is easy to establish. Consider the case that smoking (A) causes Cancer (B). Such a causal relationship will not satisfy 1)-4) . The only kinds that do satisfy are identities like Electricity (A) is a flux of charged particles (B).

Arguing for identity does not work either. On one hand you have the fact that "neurons firing" is categorically different than "having emotions". This is known as the mereological fallacy. Then we have to wonder why we should assume it is the brain producing the mind, but not the other way? Why one monism over another? This goes back to the numerous questions I've been asking you.

 

[1137]

Did the world exist before you were born?

I personally think so, though I certainly don't know for sure. How is this a defense of materialism?

 

[atanu]

Correlation causation story.

I cannot see my face and my eyes. So I see my face and my eyes in a mirror. Every state of my face and eyes that I cannot see but can feel/sense are reflected in the mirror. A pimply face with red eyes or a tired face with sleepy eyes etc etc.

So, I conclude that the mirror is cause of the different states of my face and eyes.
.....

Correlation A to B does not prove causation unless the mechanism is explained.

 

[1137]

Correlation causation story.

I cannot see my face and my eyes. So I see my face and my eyes in a mirror. Every state of my face and eyes are reflected in mirror. A pimply face with red eyes or a tired face with sleepy eyes etc etc.

So, I conclude that the mirror is cause of the different states of my face and eyes.
.....

Correlation A to B does not prove causation unless the mechanism is explained. Those who claim to

Let's see...

@sayak83
1) If A then B
2) If not A then not B
3) If B then A
4) If not B then not A

If I'm looking in a mirror / image of myself I can see my eyes and face.

If I'm not looking at an image of myself I can't see my eyes and face.

If I can see my eyes and face then I must be looking at an image of myself.

If I can't see my eyes and face then I am not looking at an image of myself.

Therefore, it's sound to say the mirror and my face are identical.

 

[atanu]

Let's see...

If I'm looking in a mirror / image of myself I can see my eyes and face.

If I'm not looking at an image of myself I can't see my eyes and face.

If I can see my eyes and face then I must be looking at an image of myself.

If I can't see my eyes and face then I am not looking at an image of myself.

Therefore, it's sound to say the mirror and my face are identical.

Yes. The Vedantic view is as below.

Pure indivisible consciousness cannot perceive itself, as we do not in deep sleep. Only after the consciousness divides into two: subject 'me' and 'object in dream state that perception starts.

Subject object division is beginning of creation of a mind, of a mirror.

 

[Koldo]

Correlation causation story.

I cannot see my face and my eyes. So I see my face and my eyes in a mirror. Every state of my face and eyes that I cannot see but can feel/sense are reflected in the mirror. A pimply face with red eyes or a tired face with sleepy eyes etc etc.

So, I conclude that the mirror is cause of the different states of my face and eyes.
.....

Correlation A to B does not prove causation unless the mechanism is explained. Those who claim to

It doesn't prove causation, but it can be an evidence of causation.

 

[sayak83]

Let's see...



If I'm looking in a mirror / image of myself I can see my eyes and face.

If I'm not looking at an image of myself I can't see my eyes and face.

If I can see my eyes and face then I must be looking at an image of myself.

If I can't see my eyes and face then I am not looking at an image of myself.

Therefore, it's sound to say the mirror and my face are identical.

What is A and what is B, its unclear from your example. Please define A and define B.

 

[sayak83]

Arguing for identity does not work either. On one hand you have the fact that "neurons firing" is categorically different than "having emotions". This is known as the mereological fallacy. Then we have to wonder why we should assume it is the brain producing the mind, but not the other way? Why one monism over another? This goes back to the numerous questions I've been asking you.

Phenomenological difference does not imply ontological difference. Color may be seen both as color and as spatio-temporal electromagnetic waves in an appropriate detector. Different ways of perceiving the same thing can lead to difference in the phenomenology of what is being seen. Hence the idea that neural patterns and mental states are categorically different is not established.

 

[Yerda]

It's the most intuitive thesis regarding the kinds of things that exist.

It rules out a lot of silly ideas.