Any Defenses of Materialism?

[Willamena]

There's no right and wrong, there's just models that work and are sound. Causality is one model that works, but what that means is that we are very clever in how we look at the world.

I'm off. I won't respond more until next week.

 

[1137]

I think so. The argument was that conscious states may better be represented in materialistic terms, based on a sound model (where otherwise they have no model) and secure analytical footing (rather than pretty metaphorical pictures). How we choose to describe the world depends largely on how it was "scribed" in the first place.

Yes something like self talk doesn't involve telling your brain to retain more serotonin. These terms that you try to dismiss are more effective than material terms. This defeats the argument.

 

[Quintessence]

Sure. Determinism/causality is a property of the physical universe. If the mind is causal, it is necessarily either material or the effect of something physical.

I'm not seeing how that follows. Granting that causality is a property of the "physical universe" this does not mean that causality could not also be a property of the "not-physical universe" of, say, thoughts and ideas. Surely we have all had the experience of one thought leading into another? Surely we are all familiar with the power of association and symbolism?

Since many of your assertions in this thread implicate the mind as an 'actor'(something remotely enacting brain states) that leaves only freewill.

This does seem to be true for the arguments 1137 is making. It's something I've found a touch odd myself.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I'm not seeing how that follows. Granting that causality is a property of the "physical universe" this does not mean that causality could not also be a property of the "not-physical universe" of, say, thoughts and ideas. Surely we have all had the experience of one thought leading into another? Surely we are all familiar with the power of association and symbolism?



This does seem to be true for the arguments 1137 is making. It's something I've found a touch odd myself.

That's hard to answer, as this idea of 'not material ' seems to be largely nonsense. It took me 3 threads to shake a single workable premise out of 1237 vis a vis this 'alternative' to material , which is still a totally undefined nebulous bald assertion as far as I can grep.

With that said, I can't imagine any way causality could take place without...causes. Could you please explain how causality works without material acting on material?

I honestly feel like veruca salt could turn into a giant blueberry at any moment, narrated by Rod Serling.

 

[George-ananda]

Here would be my answers, @1137 can answer for himself. These are good questions from the materialist side, so I want to jump in (as a non-materialist myself).

How is this signal transmitted?
How does a physical brain detect and translate non material signals?

Why can a physical brain pick up these spiritual signals but not any physical instrumentation?
By what method is it received? What part of the brain acts as a receiver? (It would help if you could show evidence of a brain acting as a receiver)

Through sympathetic vibrations between the planes of nature. These other planes exist in dimensional and vibrational levels beyond detection by our physical senses and instruments. Physical detection would be like trying to catch a radio wave with a butterfly net.

The standard theory is our physical body is interpenetrated by our higher plane bodies. Hinduism recognized five sheaths (covering our core atma/spirit). Not to get into detail but they are (from Wikipedia):

1. Annamaya kosha, "foodstuff" sheath (Anna)=physical body
2. Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana/apana)
3. Manomaya kosha "mind-stuff" sheath (Manas)
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, "wisdom" sheath (Vijnana)
5. Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)

Leaving all those details behind for this discussion, these bodies also interpenetrate the brain cells these vibrations effect the receiving areas (microtubules??) in the neurons. Now, the details of all this is beyond my personal level of expertise but information of the details by people more knowledgeable than myself is out there. I just want to point out that there are working theories.

How can memories and experiences exist without senses or a brain to store them?

Many progressive scientists are now thinking memory storage is non-local. The memory area of the brain works to retrieve memories (not store them). Again the details are above me, but there are those more informed.


I understand the attraction of the relatively simpler materialist understanding of consciousness. However, that is why I am one to harp here on paranormal phenomena that have been carefully studied and experienced by millions. This to me is real world strong evidence of the incorrectness of the materialist model; theorizing aside. The body of strong paranormal evidence is convincing to me. Eastern wisdom traditions have models by which these 'beyond the normal phenomena' are really just part and parcel of an expanded view of the normal.

Edit: I just want to add that this higher knowledge is (alleged) to come from those that can perceive through the senses of the higher bodies. Hence, they can go beyond the knowledge of physical science.

Edit2: One thing accepted by western science is that 95% of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable by physical instruments.

 

[Nous]

The only non-vacuous definition of metaphysical thesis of "materialism"--that matter (objects that have mass and volume) is the only or the primary substance--has been so thoroughly refuted by the findings and theories of modern physics it's laughable. Matter is not even one of the conserved quantities in physics.

Physics certainly doesn't offer any defense of the thesis of materialism.

 

[Koldo]

The only non-vacuous definition of metaphysical thesis of "materialism"--that matter (objects that have mass and volume) is the only or the primary substance--has been so thoroughly refuted by the findings and theories of modern physics it's laughable. Matter is not even one of the conserved quantities in physics.

Physics certainly doesn't offer any defense of the thesis of materialism.

One should be careful as to not miss the whole while looking at the details.
The term 'Materialism', on the context of this topic, is being used to mean 'Physicalism'.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Here would be my answers, @1137 can answer for himself. These are good questions from the materialist side, so I want to jump in (as a non-materialist myself).

Through sympathetic vibrations between the planes of nature. These other planes exist in dimensional and vibrational levels beyond detection by our physical senses and instruments. Physical detection would be like trying to catch a radio wave with a butterfly net.

The standard theory is our physical body is interpenetrated by our higher plane bodies. Hinduism recognized five sheaths (covering our core atma/spirit). Not to get into detail but they are (from Wikipedia):

1. Annamaya kosha, "foodstuff" sheath (Anna)=physical body
2. Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana/apana)
3. Manomaya kosha "mind-stuff" sheath (Manas)
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, "wisdom" sheath (Vijnana)
5. Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)

Leaving all those details behind for this discussion, these bodies also interpenetrate the brain cells these vibrations effect the receiving areas (microtubules??) in the neurons. Now, the details of all this is beyond my personal level of expertise but information of the details by people more knowledgeable than myself is out there. I just want to point out that there are working theories.


Many progressive scientists are now thinking memory storage is non-local. The memory area of the brain works to retrieve memories (not store them). Again the details are above me, but there are those more informed.


I understand the attraction of the relatively simpler materialist understanding of consciousness. However, that is why I am one to harp here on paranormal phenomena that have been carefully studied and experienced by millions. This to me is real world strong evidence of the incorrectness of the materialist model; theorizing aside. The body of strong paranormal evidence is convincing to me. Eastern wisdom traditions have models by which these 'beyond the normal phenomena' are really just part and parcel of an expanded view of the normal.

Edit: I just want to add that this higher knowledge is (alleged) to come from those that can perceive through the senses of the higher bodies. Hence, they can go beyond the knowledge of physical science.

Edit2: One thing accepted by western science is that 95% of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable by physical instruments.

Thats cool that you believe those things, but bald assertions without evidence don't get us any further along. You might as well be saying megatron is using advanced decepticon technology.

What is a 'plane of nature'?

What is a 'sympathetic vibration'?(all vibrations we know of are physical phenomenon soooo...)

Extra dimensional vibration levels? What the?

Higher bodies? *bonghit*

Non local memory storage? What credible scientist has ever said that? Can you link me to the actual science behind it? Any peer reviewed scientific paper will do.

And as for this paranormal phenomenon thing, Balderdash. Experienced by millions without a stitch of hard evidence? What are the odds of that I wonder.

Like I said, even if you are right, how would one know the difference between your truth and the made up lies of the next ten people? Just claiming things to be true isn't enough.

 

[Nous]

The term 'Materialism', on the context of this topic, is being used to mean 'Physicalism'.

Define "physicalism".

 

[Koldo]

Define "physicalism".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

 

[Yerda]

I'm not seeing how that follows. Granting that causality is a property of the "physical universe" this does not mean that causality could not also be a property of the "not-physical universe" of, say, thoughts and ideas.

Causality, if I understand it right, comes with some baggage that is distinctly physical. There's the implicit time dependence, cause-effect, for one thing. Time is a physical quantity. I don't know how relevant that is here but it might be.

Surely we have all had the experience of one thought leading into another? Surely we are all familiar with the power of association and symbolism?

A materialist might reply that these are determined by the state of the brain and are therefore examples of physical causation only.

 

[Nous]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The first sentence: "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical."

Define "physical".

 

[Koldo]

The first sentence: "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical."

Define "physical".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#UndPhyInt

 

[George-ananda]

Thats cool that you believe those things, but bald assertions without evidence don't get us any further along. You might as well be saying megatron is using advanced decepticon technology.

What is a 'plane of nature'?

What is a 'sympathetic vibration'?(all vibrations we know of are physical phenomenon soooo...)

Extra dimensional vibration levels? What the?

Higher bodies? *bonghit*

Non local memory storage? What credible scientist has ever said that? Can you link me to the actual science behind it? Any peer reviewed scientific paper will do.

And as for this paranormal phenomenon thing, Balderdash. Experienced by millions without a stitch of hard evidence? What are the odds of that I wonder.

Like I said, even if you are right, how would one know the difference between your truth and the made up lies of the next ten people? Just claiming things to be true isn't enough.

I would take the time to answer each of those questions if I perceived serious open-mindedness.

 

[Nous]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#UndPhyInt

From that section:

The theory-based conception:

A property is physical iff it either is 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 . . .
​

Aren't these definitions circular? They do not inform us how to distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not.

If "physical" were an important concept in science or in investigating the world that is external to one's own mind, then why doesn't physics (or some other scientific discipline) use this concept? The science of physics does not restrict its investigations to only something definable as "physical". Physics doesn't define the term "physical"; it isn't an important, much less essential, concept in this scientific discipline. If by the methods of the physicist, the discovery is made that the most fundamental "stuff" of the universe, underlying all other actions, is something that is unobservable to their senses, something such as a quantity (such as energy), then that is what is discovered.

 

[Koldo]

From that section:

The theory-based conception:

A property is physical iff it either is 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 . . .
​

Aren't these definitions circular? They do not inform us how to distinguish something that is "physical" from something that is not.

If "physical" were an important concept in science or in investigating the world that is external to one's own mind, then why doesn't physics (or some other scientific discipline) use this concept? The science of physics does not restrict its investigations to only something definable as "physical". Physics doesn't define the term "physical"; it isn't an important, much less essential, concept in this scientific discipline. If by the methods of the physicist, the discovery is made that the most fundamental "stuff" of the universe, underlying all other actions, is something that is unobservable to their senses, something such as a quantity (such as energy), then that is what is discovered.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#UndPhyFurIss

 

[Quintessence]

A materialist might reply that these are determined by the state of the brain and are therefore examples of physical causation only.

Makes not a lick of sense to me. Honestly, the fundamental problem with the general question of "what is the fundamental substance that things reduce to" is that the major ideas about this are all non-falsifiable. It's philosophy. What drives me nuts is not these various positions in of themselves, but when it is posited that they are the "correct" position and that others are "wrong." That's rubbish. Build the ontology you want, and stick with it until it no longer suits.

 

[Yerda]

Makes not a lick of sense to me. Honestly, the fundamental problem with the general question of "what is the fundamental substance that things reduce to" is that the major ideas about this are all non-falsifiable. It's philosophy. What drives me nuts is not these various positions in of themselves, but when it is posited that they are the "correct" position and that others are "wrong." That's rubbish. Build the ontology you want, and stick with it until it no longer suits.

I think that describes how I feel about the matter, too.

Sometimes talking about this stuff is more of a word game than a what is reality game. We stick the ideas into sentences and put those sentences next to other sentences and deduce that we've said something. We then ask the other person to do something similar with their preferred ideas and deduce that we are having a debate. Neither of us really knowing either position in any concrete fashion or how to proceed.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Makes not a lick of sense to me. Honestly, the fundamental problem with the general question of "what is the fundamental substance that things reduce to" is that the major ideas about this are all non-falsifiable. It's philosophy. What drives me nuts is not these various positions in of themselves, but when it is posited that they are the "correct" position and that others are "wrong." That's rubbish. Build the ontology you want, and stick with it until it no longer suits.

Not me. I'm not really a materialist, in the strictest sense, as I know that there is more to the universe we don't understand, and would postulate knowing these things might require technologies that could defy what we know about everything, at this point.

BUT, what we have now, our science, is all we have to work with. It's just intellectually dishonest to ones self primarily, to believe things without first scrutinizing them exhaustively and discarding the fluff. To me its the worst thing.

Sure, you will end up living in a less colorful and interesting narrative, but you will also see more clearly. A worthy trade-off for me.

 

[atanu]

Brain represents other objects of the world as well as each and every part of the body, similarly it represents itself through a model. This model is the process called the self.

Ha. Ha. Sayak. That is not mechanism of how consciousness is created in brain.

Let us however, see what your brain theology means.

We know that the brain is a fixture of one's waking world.

But according to you, brain represents everything. So , when everything is deleted, does brain remain as the Super God, emanating Brain Consciousness -- Krishna Consciousness?

So, you are replacing Brahman or God with Brain. It is a fine theology.