Are atheists monists?

[idav]

As Laplace said "It has no need of that assumption".

Knowledge has repercussions.

 

[Laika]

So matter is anything that science can discover? I guess I can live with that.

I'm not sure what other alternatives there are. For example, is math 'objective reality'? It doesn't appear to be 'given to us by sensation', so if it is objective, it wouldn't be matter, right?

So, if I allow math, does that make me a non-monist?

Its all connected with the Marxist-Leninist theory of consciousness as a "product and reflection of matter". Maths is a mental reflection of something that is material and the processes of the brain that are responsible for consciousness are material. So if I count rocks I am reflecting objective reality in the process of abstract thought. The actual process of thinking is itself a product of the physical process of the brains.

Dreams, Sexual Fantasies, hallucinations, emotions, everything in our consciousness are all reflections of matter, are all products of consciousness as "matter organised in a special way" in the brain and are determined by matter. However, the fact an idea reflects objective reality doesn't mean it is accurate because the idea is merely an "image" in thought- not identical with the object we sense. There is an objective reality, but our consciousness and sensation of it is finite and incomplete as it exists within the brain.

If that doesn't make complete sense, that's fine. On paper I think that sounds "about right" but I'm still trying to get the hang of it.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. So how do I determine if, say, an electron is a 'substance'?

If, for example, there are multiple 'fundamental particles', does that mean that monism is false? What if they are all quantum particles and thereby share many properties? Or do we consider them all to be 'material' (whatever that means) and thereby claim all things are material and thereby monism is correct?

My issue is that these terms aren't well enough defined to lead to meaningful discussion.

You simply ask yourself if an electron is fundamental, or if it has composition. If it has composition, it is made of substance (in the way the word is used here). 'Matter' and 'thought' are the substances of the classical debate regarding dualism. They are fundamental because things can be reduced to them, but they cannot be reduced.

As terms, they are deliberately 'vauge' in a world where what is precise is precisely composed.

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

That is a good question. Here is a better one, Are you a creationist or an evolutionist?

 

[Willamena]

Its all connected with the Marxist-Leninist theory of consciousness as a "product and reflection of matter". Maths is a mental reflection of something that is material and the processes of the brain that are responsible for consciousness are material. So if I count rocks I am reflecting objective reality in the process of abstract thought. The actual process of thinking is itself a product of the physical process of the brains.

Dreams, Sexual Fantasies, hallucinations, emotions, everything in our consciousness are all reflections of matter, are all products of consciousness as "matter organised in a special way" in the brain and are determined by matter. However, the fact an idea reflects objective reality doesn't mean it is accurate because the idea is merely an "image" in thought- not identical with the object we sense. There is an objective reality, but our consciousness and sensation of it is finite and incomplete as it exists within the brain.

If that doesn't make complete sense, that's fine. On paper I think that sounds "about right" but I'm still trying to get the hang of it.

It makes fine sense.

 

[Laika]

It makes fine sense.

Thanks. I really wasn't sure.

 

[Willamena]

Why or why not? Do atheists think existence came from one thing, or a no thing? I think one thing seems unlikely enough I wouldn't speculate more.

How is it unlikely?

 

[Willamena]

Thanks. I really wasn't sure.

Now all that's left to explain is how nothing really exists "in the brain," per se.

 

[Laika]

Now all that's left to explain is how nothing really exists "in the brain," per se.

I'll get back to you on that one. That could take a while.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Heh....whereas I wouldn't categorize myself as a materialist (in the true sense of the word) and still see myself as intellectually honest.
As for monism, who cares? It's hardly a definitive question for an atheist.

(Just mho)

Perhaps I should clarify.
I didn't mean that only Materialists could be intellectually honest. Nor did I mean that Atheists are necessarily monist materialists. That's just how it is for me.

My brand of Epistemology harbors more intellectually honest conversation when I stick strictly to monist materialist explanations. In my opinion, it produces more pragmatic and useful advancements that any other epistemological attempt.

 

[idav]

How is it unlikely?

Well there is nondualism to contend with.

 

[Willamena]

Well there is nondualism to contend with.

I don't understand.

Monism and (especially) nondualism are not about where things came from.

Monism: if you reduce everything, you arrive at one basic substance descriptor for everything.
Dualism: there is mind and there is body, and in the dicotomy one is not satisfied by the substance descriptor of the other.

Nondualism is part of another discussion: both mind and body are satisfied within the dicotomy of permanence/impermanence.

 

[idav]

I don't understand.

Monism and (especially) nondualism are not about where things came from.

Monism: if you reduce everything, you arrive at one basic substance descriptor for everything.
Dualism: there is mind and there is body, and in the dicotomy one is not satisfied by the substance descriptor of the other.

Nondualism is part of another discussion: both mind and body are satisfied within the dicotomy of permanence/impermanence.

Arriving at a descriptor means monism as well as dualism are making a declaration, a dualist would be describing a panentheistic universe just from its implications.

 

[Willamena]

Arriving at a descriptor means monism as well as dualism are making a declaration, a dualist would be describing a panentheistic universe just from its implications.

He could be, if he were a theist.

Stating the substance to be matter doesn't mean that it is intelligent, and stating that mind is different from matter but real doesn't necessarily imply a god.

These terms (pantheism, panentheism, monism, etc.) are an image of how the world reduces right here and now. So the theist could easily reduce body/mind to a god/immanent creation image.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why or why not? Do atheists think existence came from one thing, or a no thing? I think one thing seems unlikely enough I wouldn't speculate more.

I'm an atheist and don't even know what that is. Sure, I'll google it because I'm curious.....but.......the only thing all atheists have to have in common is a lack in belief that deities exist.

 

[idav]

He could be, if he were a theist.

Stating the substance to be matter doesn't mean that it is intelligent, and stating that mind is different from matter but real doesn't necessarily imply a god.

These terms (pantheism, panentheism, monism, etc.) are an image of how the world reduces right here and now. So the theist could easily reduce body/mind to a god/immanent creation image.

mon·ism
[ˈmäˌnizəm, ˈmōˌnizəm]
NOUN

1. 
   a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

 

[Polymath257]

You simply ask yourself if an electron is fundamental, or if it has composition. If it has composition, it is made of substance (in the way the word is used here). 'Matter' and 'thought' are the substances of the classical debate regarding dualism. They are fundamental because things can be reduced to them, but they cannot be reduced.

As terms, they are deliberately 'vauge' in a world where what is precise is precisely composed.

I'm not sure that 'fundamental' and having a 'composition' are at odds. As far as we know, electrons are 'fundamental', they are cannot be decomposed. But, if string theory is correct, they are described as vibrations in 'quantum strings'. I use scare quotes for good reason: the 'strings' are not 'composed' of anything.

As for 'matter' and 'thought', I don't have good definitions of either. Matter is more in line with my specialties, and I have *no* idea how to define the concept in a sensible way that is consistent with our understanding of, say, atoms.

Thought, at least, seems to be reducible to 'matter', probably even patterns of neuron fire.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps I should clarify.
I didn't mean that only Materialists could be intellectually honest. Nor did I mean that Atheists are necessarily monist materialists. That's just how it is for me.

My brand of Epistemology harbors more intellectually honest conversation when I stick strictly to monist materialist explanations. In my opinion, it produces more pragmatic and useful advancements that any other epistemological attempt.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for extrapolating, I'd misunderstood your meaning.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't understand.

Monism and (especially) nondualism are not about where things came from.

Monism: if you reduce everything, you arrive at one basic substance descriptor for everything.
Dualism: there is mind and there is body, and in the dicotomy one is not satisfied by the substance descriptor of the other.

Nondualism is part of another discussion: both mind and body are satisfied within the dicotomy of permanence/impermanence.

So what do you call it if, when you reduce everything, there are 37 different 'basic substance descriptors'? Or even more?

For example, in today's standard model of particles, there are three fermion families, each having two leptons and two quarks, each of which has an anti-particle. Then we have 8 gluons and 3 vector bosons, 1 photon, and a Higg's particle. There is even some flexibility in the counting. The number of quarks could be tripled depending on how you count.

All are 'fundamental' in the sense of not being composed of anything else. All can interact with others, appearing or disappearing, or changing, depending on the interaction involved.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure that 'fundamental' and having a 'composition' are at odds. As far as we know, electrons are 'fundamental', they are cannot be decomposed. But, if string theory is correct, they are described as vibrations in 'quantum strings'. I use scare quotes for good reason: the 'strings' are not 'composed' of anything.

As for 'matter' and 'thought', I don't have good definitions of either. Matter is more in line with my specialties, and I have *no* idea how to define the concept in a sensible way that is consistent with our understanding of, say, atoms.

Thought, at least, seems to be reducible to 'matter', probably even patterns of neuron fire.

Everything is energy, that is fundamental, all forms of matter are variations of energy at lower slower frequencies.