Are You a Materialist?

[George-ananda]

Noooooo! Don't burn out. Be strong like a koala, brother.

Or is it "be cute as a koala"? Not sure...

OK, after a fairly decent night's sleep, the Koala is going to use his cunning rather than his claws today. I am going to try a different approach to address our disconnect on what 'materialism' means (per the OP definition).

Instead of me asking 'Are you a Materialist', I am going to ask if you can indulge me by telling me in your own words what you think the 'materialism' definition presented is trying to say.

 

[George-ananda]

For the sake of clarity, I wish to point out that devas and brahmas are as empty of self as humans. Ultimately, there are only impersonal elements. Break every "being" down. No soul, no self, no being.

This is not so different than Advaita; but the question Buddhism leaves unclear to me is 'what remains' after these souls, selfs, beings break down. Is it nothingness? Is it the ground of being (Brahman or something)? Is there a solid movie screen upon which these ever changing impermanent characters are displaying?

 

[George-ananda]

I reject the notion of a soul that exists independently of mind and matter.

I see the soul as what has been called the 'Causal Body' in esoteric literature; an ever-changing impermanent vehicle/body on one of the higher planes of nature. Just like the human body is considered the same entity from moment to moment; the Causal Body is the same entity from physical lifetime to physical lifetime.

The issue seems to be that you are saying the rejection of a soul is equivalent to materialism.

This time you are the one making assumptions about my beliefs. One can for example believe in gods but no human soul and that would qualify them as non-materialists.

It is not. Neither mind nor matter has an ultimate beginning.

Well I'm thinking what science classifies as matter may have had its beginnings in the Big Bang (But this is off-topic but interesting).

Yes, I believe there are. The Buddha teaches there are other realms of experience. He speaks of devas and brahmas.

Then I would believe you should have answered 'No' to the OP question. There is no place for devas in the materialist philosophy discussed in the OP.

I reject the concept of a soul. I do believe in rebirth and do believe in heavenly and hellish realms.

But are you saying the mechanism by which one can continue to be reborn or experience a heavenly realm is a mystery? If these things happen there must be a mechanism and I believe that mechanism is best described by Theosophy/Vedic teachers.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I am a pragmatic materialist which only accepts materialism as a standard due to lack of evidence for anything beyond it but is not a philosophical stance but a pragmatic one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would say that I am. After all, we are living in a material world, and I am a material... ist.

 

[Nada]

I am not.I still have the same tv since 2007 and don't even own a cell phone.I also wear shirts with holes in them and I buy used cars too.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK, after a fairly decent night's sleep, the Koala is going to use his cunning rather than his claws today. I am going to try a different approach to address our disconnect on what 'materialism' means (per the OP definition).

Instead of me asking 'Are you a Materialist', I am going to ask if you can indulge me by telling me in your own words what you think the 'materialism' definition presented is trying to say.

Well, I didn't have a problem with your definition. I think it was someone else that engaged you in how it was supposed to be defined (according to that person). You have no problems with me.

My understanding was that you were using it from the philosophical view point. Philosophical materialism, however, if I remember correctly, has several different sub-categories. It's not just one single, straightforward, unified category. But, I'm picking this from my fickle mind, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[von bek]

But are you saying the mechanism by which one can continue to be reborn or experience a heavenly realm is a mystery? If these things happen there must be a mechanism and I believe that mechanism is best described by Theosophy/Vedic teachers.

It is dependent origination. Let me quote an earlier post I made:

The Buddha teaches dependent origination. Conditioned by ignorance; volitional formations arise. Conditioned by volitional formations; consciousness arises. Conditioned by consciousness; name and form arise. Conditioned by name and form; the sense bases arise. Conditioned by the sense bases; contact arises. Conditioned by contact; feeling arises. Conditioned by feeling; craving arises. Conditioned by craving; clinging arises. Conditioned by clinging; becoming arises. Conditioned by becoming; birth arises. Conditioned by birth; sickness, old age, and death arises. As a Buddhist, this is my concern and my answer.

There is no mechanism external to the process itself. No first cause. No unitary substance or essence that underlies everything. What causes rebirth? According to the Buddha, birth arises with becoming as condition. Becoming arises with clinging as condition. Clinging arises with craving as condition....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The word materialist
referring only to the use of the word per the definition in the OP.

Your OP's definition of "materialist" depends on the terms "physical", "material", and "metaphysical", which you have not defined (and tend to be very slippery).

It seems like you're claiming that there exist real things that have real interactions with the physical, causing physical effects despite not being physical thenselves. I don't see why you wouldn't just call such a thing "physical", or how you could ever hope to differentiate between a physical thing with physical effects and a "metaphysical" thing with physical effects.

It seems to me that the dividing line is between things that are well-understood and confirmed to exist, and things that are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, after a fairly decent night's sleep, the Koala is going to use his cunning rather than his claws today. I am going to try a different approach to address our disconnect on what 'materialism' means (per the OP definition).

Instead of me asking 'Are you a Materialist', I am going to ask if you can indulge me by telling me in your own words what you think the 'materialism' definition presented is trying to say.

It's trying to obfuscate things. It implicitly rejects certain straightforward ideas (i.e. "'the material' is just that which exists in reality" and "we can only know about a thing when we have the means to learn about that thing"), apparently in an attempt to carve a niche where certain poorly-supported claims are allowed to exist unchallenged.

 

[George-ananda]

It is dependent origination. Let me quote an earlier post I made:



There is no mechanism external to the process itself. No first cause. No unitary substance or essence that underlies everything. What causes rebirth? According to the Buddha, birth arises with becoming as condition. Becoming arises with clinging as condition. Clinging arises with craving as condition....

I think this Buddhist philosophy you are talking about is a separate issue from what I am trying to get at. Can you get what I mean by the scientific materialist worldview where everything is matter and its interactions. Ultimately, all this mental phenomena and origination stuff you are talking about can be reduced to material interactions.

Before I go further: do you understand this worldview? (I am not asking here if it agrees or not with Buddhism).

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I didn't have a problem with your definition. I think it was someone else that engaged you in how it was supposed to be defined (according to that person). You have no problems with me.

My understanding was that you were using it from the philosophical view point. Philosophical materialism, however, if I remember correctly, has several different sub-categories. It's not just one single, straightforward, unified category. But, I'm picking this from my fickle mind, so take it with a grain of salt.

How would you then respond to my post #91/

 

[von bek]

I think this Buddhist philosophy you are talking about is a separate issue from what I am trying to get at. Can you get what I mean by the scientific materialist worldview where everything is matter and its interactions. Ultimately, all this mental phenomena and origination stuff you are talking about can be reduced to material interactions.

Before I go further: do you understand this worldview? (I am not asking here if it agrees or not with Buddhism).

I believe I do understand it. My worldview does not reduce everything to material interactions. Mind conditions matter in various ways. I do not believe there was a time when only matter existed and then, at some point, consciousness arose as a property possessed by matter. Mind and matter have always coexisted, propelling each other along in an endless wheel of suffering.

My view is that mental phenomena can and does arise due to material interactions. On the same level, material phenomena can and does arise due to mental interactions.

If I may ask you a question, do you view matter as somehow illusory, with mind being MORE real? (I would assume so since you identify as an Advaitin; but, I do want to bring this issue out into the open as it appears to be impacting the identification of just what qualifies as "materialism".)

 

[George-ananda]

I believe I do understand it.

Good start.

My worldview does not reduce everything to material interactions. Mind conditions matter in various ways. I do not believe there was a time when only matter existed and then, at some point, consciousness arose as a property possessed by matter. Mind and matter have always coexisted, propelling each other along in an endless wheel of suffering.

Now that is interesting. Aren't these two points contradicting? there was a time when only matter existed and your other point Mind and matter have always coexisted

And then this arising of consciousness occurred: What can that be? Isn't it still reducible to material interactions; just a name given to certain type of material interactions?

My view is that mental phenomena can and does arise due to material interactions. On the same level, material phenomena can and does arise due to mental interactions.

The second sentence is tricky....mental interactions can arise material phenomena? I don't understand this.

If I may ask you a question; do you view matter as somehow illusory, with mind being MORE real? (I would assume so since you identify as an Advaitin; but, I do want to bring this issue out into the open as it appears to be impacting the identification of just what qualifies as "materialism".)

Brahman Alone is Real. The universe is a great play/drama in which Brahman separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. The material can be looked at as the props in this play.

In the points discussed above we would say consciousness descends into/incarnates matter for finite experience and not that matter alone can ever give rise to consciousness.

 

[von bek]

Good start.


Now that is interesting. Aren't these two points contradicting? there was a time when only matter existed and your other point Mind and matter have always coexisted?

Wait a second. I said, I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ONLY MATTER EXISTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The second sentence is tricky....mental interactions can arise material phenomena? I don't understand this.

One example would be how present karma conditions a future material form.

 

[von bek]

The second sentence is tricky....mental interactions can arise material phenomena? I don't understand this.

Another example would be, a thought arises, the contact of the thought with the mind sense-base gives rise to a painful feeling (feeling is a mental aggregate), this painful mental feeling causes a material change. (For example, the mental factor of grief arises when I think of a lost loved one, ultimately leading to me forming the intention to get drunk in order to numb the painful feeling or cause a pleasant feeling to arise.)

On a grander scale, we can see our intent, a mental factor, leading to the modification of our natural environment. Mind is manipulating matter.

 

[George-ananda]

Wait a second. I said, I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ONLY MATTER EXISTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps I misread or it. No problem.

One example would be how present karma conditions a future material form.

What are the mechanics by which such a process can occur

You said I believe earlier that you believe in rebirth. Can you tell me what you think happens immediately after death to an individual. Rebirth to me sounds unimportant if there is no conscious continuation after death. What say you?

What do you think of the near death experience phenomena as an indication of what happens immediately after death.[/QUOTE]

 

[George-ananda]

Another example would be, a thought arises, the contact of the thought with the mind sense-base gives rise to a painful feeling (feeling is a mental aggregate), this painful mental feeling causes a material change. (For example, the mental factor of grief arises when I think of a lost loved one, ultimately leading to me forming the intention to get drunk in order to numb the painful feeling or cause a pleasant feeling to arise.)

On a grander scale, we can see our intent, a mental factor, leading to the modification of our natural environment. Mind is manipulating matter.

OK, a materialist (not me) would say all of that all these mental changes and their effects are just material interactions in a physical brain triggered other physical material interactions. The materialist does not doubt that thoughts cause action. They argue the brain operates mechanically with each physical element (atom, electron) just following its own natural path clueless of any bigger picture. Do you get what they think?

 

[Ouroboros]

How would you then respond to my post #91/

I think von bek is doing a good job explaining. He seems to have same or very similar views as me.

 

[Bunyip]

What I don't understand George, is why you say materialists can not believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, telepathy, psi powers and so on.
All of those things could be the product of physical, processes - and thus within materialism as you define it.

You seem to simply assume that all of those phenomena somehow could only exist if consciousness is primary - but that is not reflected in the definitions given, nor have you (or could you) supported that assertion.

So let me ask directly: What if souls, spirits, ghosts, telepathy, psi-powers are the product of physical processes? Then they would not conflict with materialism as you defined it correct?

The only reason you insist that a materialist must reject such things is because you assert that for some unspoken reason those phenomena somehow establish that consciousness is primary - how so?