Are You a Materialist?

[viole]

I don't think you will need an excuse. You will have progressed by the quality of your heart and mind. Humanists can progress.

What makes you think I am a humanist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Awoon]

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

I was watching a NASCAR race on TV once and there was a crash but one car made it through the crash without wrecking. The Announcer who was watching the same incident as me, kept saying, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it" that the car made it through the crash.

What's NOT to believe about it? We could see the car make it through the crash. His repeating his Non Belief didn't change the Facts that were clearly seen by ALL watching !!

So my question is, Why do "Beliefs" have to determine Fact/True/Correct/In your face to make them so?

 

[George-ananda]

What makes you think I am a humanist?

Ciao

- viole

The fact that I have read from you that you care about the fate of fellow humans. I wasn't referring to any official position by the word 'humanism'.

 

[George-ananda]

I was watching a NASCAR race on TV once and there was a crash but one car made it through the crash without wrecking. The Announcer who was watching the same incident as me, kept saying, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it" that the car made it through the crash.

What's NOT to believe about it? We could see the car make it through the crash. His repeating his Non Belief didn't change the Facts that were clearly seen by ALL watching !!

Everybody understands that 'I don't believe it' in that context just means 'absolutely amazing'. You are taking a figure of speech literally which is a mistake.

So my question is, Why do "Beliefs" have to determine Fact/True/Correct/In your face to make them so?

I am sorry but your explanation didn't help me understand further.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here is the working definition of Materialism for this thread (per Wikipedia):

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

No. I believe it's all much more complex than that. Consciousness does result from material interactions, but why do they emerge from it? And how can they? That's the mystery

If you are a materialist, you can not believe in anything metaphysical like God, afterlives, spirits, souls, etc.

Metaphysical is not the same as supernatural or non-natural. Emergent properties of materialism is metaphysical. Metaphysical, things that exist but cannot be seen, like pi of a circle or swarm behavior. The word really means "after the physical things." Super-natural means more of "above or beyond natural". In that aspect of how I use the term metaphysical, even a materialist believe in metaphysics, since the mind is emergent from the physical.

I want to keep this question as basic as possible because questions often get misunderstood here if they say too much.

I will argue that there are only three possible answers: 'Yes', 'No' and 'Undecided' and that everyone must have one and only one answer. If some tries to waffle a fourth answer I will argue until my Koala Bear avatar turns blue in the face that this is not possible.

Yes, no, and undecided, regarding my own view. I'm all of them. Consciousness is emergent from matter, but matter is emergent from forces unseen and not understood. It's a cycle of things make non-things, and non-things make things. So material and non-material are both first and both interdependent.

But, of course, if we're to use the term "materialist" specifically, how it's defined and used in philosophy, no, then I'm not. But I'm not sure I can be placed in any other group either. Undecided works too, since I really ultimately don't know.

I'll go first; I am a 'No' on the question as I believe consciousness is primary and that souls and non-physical spiritual planes exist that are not composed of physical plane material.

Yet, consciousness needs time, space, things to sense, life to experience, being finite, and so forth to be aware of its own existence. Being conscious is to be aware of ones existence, in my view and use of the word.

---

Let the battle of the koalas begin!!! LOL!

 

[JoStories]

I am not a materialist, because I certainly believe that it is possible that there is more to reality than matter. But, I am not spiritualist either, as I do not think that either is more important.

I agree but slightly disagree about spiritualist. Maybe I am misreading your intent but I am very spiritual. However, that does not imply anything occult or parapsychological by any means unless one considers my NA ties.

 

[Awoon]

Everybody understands that 'I don't believe it' in that context just means 'absolutely amazing'. You are taking a figure of speech literally which is a mistake.


I am sorry but your explanation didn't help me understand further.

Yer in denial. "Beliefs" carry weight that don't mean "absolutely amazing."

If you are a materialist, you can not believe in anything metaphysical like God, afterlives, spirits, souls, etc

 

[Quintessence]

Gods need not be understood in metaphysical or "spiritual" terms. Let us not forget that naturalistic god-concepts are a thing, yes?

At any rate, my own position on the substance dialogue is never even represented amongst the choices. It seems it's only yaking between substance monism of some flavor, of substance dualism of some flavor, and substance pluralism is left out. Doesn't particularly bother me, though. The main reason I take the position I do has nothing to do with answering the question "what is/are the fundamental substance(s) of reality" and more to do with "what story about fundamental substance(s) provides me with rich inspiration around which I can structure a religious practice I enjoy?"

 

[Gambit]

Dang, I should have set this up as a poll because that would have been interesting. I'll do a manual poll and post results at the end. But maybe not, because people would have voted without really understanding the question.

I have already conducted such a poll in my thread entitled "Spiritualism vs. Materialism."

 

[Awoon]

Are Ideas Material before they come into the world?

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. I am a Materialist.

Thanks for the straightforward answer.

Materialism does not exclude having ideals worth striving for or doing more than realising our animal needs. But it excludes only the belief that these ideals came from a source other than man himself).

Yes, this is true. I see the problem people have with the question is some other uses of the word 'materialist' is generally unflattering but that is not the definition being used here.

 

[von bek]

I am not a materialist. I reject any first cause. I believe that mind and matter mutually condition each other.

 

[George-ananda]

No. I believe it's all much more complex than that. Consciousness does result from material interactions, but why do they emerge from it? And how can they? That's the mystery


Metaphysical is not the same as supernatural or non-natural. Emergent properties of materialism is metaphysical. Metaphysical, things that exist but cannot be seen, like pi of a circle or swarm behavior. The word really means "after the physical things." Super-natural means more of "above or beyond natural". In that aspect of how I use the term metaphysical, even a materialist believe in metaphysics, since the mind is emergent from the physical.


Yes, no, and undecided, regarding my own view. I'm all of them. Consciousness is emergent from matter, but matter is emergent from forces unseen and not understood. It's a cycle of things make non-things, and non-things make things. So material and non-material are both first and both interdependent.

But, of course, if we're to use the term "materialist" specifically, how it's defined and used in philosophy, no, then I'm not. But I'm not sure I can be placed in any other group either. Undecided works too, since I really ultimately don't know.


Yet, consciousness needs time, space, things to sense, life to experience, being finite, and so forth to be aware of its own existence. Being conscious is to be aware of ones existence, in my view and use of the word.

I'm marking Ouroboros down as 'Undecided'

---

Let the battle of the koalas begin!!! LOL!

My Koala is not blue in the face yet but his blood pressure did rise above 120/80 reading this post !

 

[George-ananda]

Gods need not be understood in metaphysical or "spiritual" terms. Let us not forget that naturalistic god-concepts are a thing, yes?

At any rate, my own position on the substance dialogue is never even represented amongst the choices. It seems it's only yaking between substance monism of some flavor, of substance dualism of some flavor, and substance pluralism is left out. Doesn't particularly bother me, though. The main reason I take the position I do has nothing to do with answering the question "what is/are the fundamental substance(s) of reality" and more to do with "what story about fundamental substance(s) provides me with rich inspiration around which I can structure a religious practice I enjoy?"

I'm putting Quintessence down as 'Undecided'.

I should have known Quintessence and @Ouroboros would raise the Koala's blood pressure.

 

[Nakosis]

I'll go first; I am a 'No' on the question as I believe consciousness is primary

I agree with this statement.
However I also don't think the truth or non-truth of this matters in any significant way.

There is no experience of reality outside of consciousness. So the existence of a physical, material existence is irrelevant.

and that souls and non-physical spiritual planes exist that are not composed of physical plane material.

I won't go off topic with my own idealism but simply say this is a type of dualism I don't agree with.

 

[Iti oj]

Here is the working definition of Materialism for this thread (per Wikipedia):

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

If you are a materialist, you can not believe in anything metaphysical like God, afterlives, spirits, souls, etc.

I want to keep this question as basic as possible because questions often get misunderstood here if they say too much.

I will argue that there are only three possible answers: 'Yes', 'No' and 'Undecided' and that everyone must have one and only one answer. If some tries to waffle a fourth answer I will argue until my Koala Bear avatar turns blue in the face that this is not possible.

I'll go first; I am a 'No' on the question as I believe consciousness is primary and that souls and non-physical spiritual planes exist that are not composed of physical plane material.

Yes. was the more you wanted from me? ...

 

[George-ananda]

I have already conducted such a poll in my thread entitled "Spiritualism vs. Materialism."

I hate in when 'both' is either leading or tied for the lead when I see them as exclusive! I'm trying to simplify the question.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with this statement.
However I also don't think the truth or non-truth of this matters in any significant way.

There is no experience of reality outside of consciousness. So the existence of a physical, material existence is irrelevant.



I won't go off topic with my own idealism but simply say this is a type of dualism I don't agree with.

For the simplified question at hand I'm putting you down as a 'No' to materialism per the OP definition.

 

[Nakosis]

Why do people always have to "believe" for something to be true/correct/Fact/in your face?

Not every mind has the same degree of flexibility.

I read a lot of fiction when I was young. I'd read an entire book in one night sometimes. Maybe it was a way of expanding the flexibility of the mind.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes.

Thanks for the straightforward answer.

was the more you wanted from me? ...

Nope, trying to keep it simple.