Argument from Intentionality Contra Materialism

[Sovereign Dream]

Take materialism to be the claim that only the physical world exists; that everything that exists is material (i.e. has a given spatio-temporal location, etc.).

If materialism is true, then thoughts are just neurons firing in x-manner and neurons firing in x-manner are just an interaction of atoms thought-wise.

Now, consider a thought. A thought is inevitably "about" something. I may think, for example, about the post I'm writing right now on the Religion Education Forum. If I am thirsty, I may be thinking about getting a cup of water. If I am hungry I may be thinking about hunger, or about the steak I left in the refrigerator. Call this "aboutness" intentionality. When I say that thoughts feature "intentionality," I am not saying that a thought must entail that a person thinking a thought must intend to do some thing or other; I am merely saying that a thought is inevitably "about" something.

Matter, however, is not "about" anything. An atom of hydrogen, for example, is not "about" anything. Seven billion atoms are not "about" anything. And so forth. Merely increasing the number of atoms does nothing to change the fact that atoms are not "about" anything. But if atoms are not "about" anything, and thoughts on this view (that is, materialism) are nothing more than a sequence of atoms interacting thought-wise, then it follows that our thoughts are not "about" anything either.

But our thoughts clearly are "about" something. Even the thought "our thoughts are not about anything" is about something, namely, that our thoughts are not about anything. So materialism must be false (or, say, some form of dualism or something similar must be true).

This can be formalized into a syllogism:

Argument From Intentionality Contra Materialism:

P1. If materialism is true, then thoughts are just a sequence of atoms interacting thought-wise.

P2. Atoms have no intentional states (i.e. atoms are not "about" anything).

P3. Therefore, (from P1 and P2) if materialism is true, then thoughts have no intentional states.

P4. Thoughts do have intentional states.

C: Therefore, (from P3 and P4) materialism is false.




Let me know what you think

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What? Nothing in materialism states you cannot have abstract concepts.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

What? Nothing in materialism states you cannot have abstract concepts.

Materialism is the claim that only the material exists; that the immaterial does not exist, etc.

On materialism, then, there are no such thing as abstract objects for such things are immaterial.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Materialism is the claim that only the material exists; that the immaterial does not exist, etc.

On materialism, then, there are no such thing as abstract objects for such things are immaterial.

Wrong? I don't know what else to say. Abstract concepts such as math, ideas, dreams ect are all abstract. The concept of materialism is an abstract thought or concept. But the atoms that exist within the brain, the electrons that pass energy along to produce the chemical processes in the brain that allow "thought" are all physical.

There are even particals that don't have mass that "exist" as forces. I don't know specifically if materialism is correct or not. Honestly I haven't given it that much thought though it interests me somewhat so I may research into it more.

However nothing within materialism states that we cannot have abstract thoughts or concepts. Your assumptions come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Isn't this just an alternate version of the 'how can life come from non-life' argument?

 

[Revoltingest]

If thought is an emergent property of matter (like Boyle's law), the whole OP argument falls apart.
Premise #2 is the weak one.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Wrong? I don't know what else to say. Abstract concepts such as math, ideas, dreams ect are all abstract. The concept of materialism is an abstract thought or concept. But the atoms that exist within the brain, the electrons that pass energy along to produce the chemical processes in the brain that allow "thought" are all physical.

There are even particals that don't have mass that "exist" as forces. I don't know specifically if materialism is correct or not. Honestly I haven't given it that much thought though it interests me somewhat so I may research into it more.

However nothing within materialism states that we cannot have abstract thoughts or concepts. Your assumptions come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy.

This is muddleheaded; if materialism is true, then, by definition, there are no such things as immaterial things and thus no such things as abstractions or abstract objects, etc. for these are just immaterial by virtue of their being abstract. Materialism, at any rate, at least seems to imply nominalism. What you are outlining here is just another argument against nominalism and materialism generally, in case materialism does indeed imply nominalism. That argument is just a sort of Argument from Universals, or some such argument akin to it, which states that universals, e.g. "redness" or "traingularity" and so forth, cannot coherently be reducible to material interactions thought-wise.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Isn't this just an alternate version of the 'how can life come from non-life' argument?

Not at all.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

If thought is an emergent property of matter (like Boyle's law), the whole OP argument falls apart.
Premise #2 is the weak one.

Finally someone who speaks my language!

I have difficulty seeing, however, how emergent properties are not just themselves reducible themselves to atoms interacting x-wise, x-wise just being the relevant so-called emergent property.

 

[Revoltingest]

Finally someone who speaks my language!
I have difficulty seeing, however, how emergent properties are not just themselves reducible themselves to atoms interacting x-wise, x-wise just being the relevant so-called emergent property.

Tis in the nature of emergent properties of aggregations of matter
that the properties don't exist for individual particles.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So, why is an argument against materialism in the Atheism DIR section?

...you do realize atheism is simply a position on the existence of gods, and that this isn't a debate section, right?

 

[apophenia]

P4. Thoughts do have intentional states.

Thoughts have states ?

That is a dog's breakfast of a proposition. It doesn't actually mean anything which I can discern.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is muddleheaded; if materialism is true, then, by definition, there are no such things as immaterial things and thus no such things as abstractions or abstract objects, etc. for these are just immaterial by virtue of their being abstract. Materialism, at any rate, at least seems to imply nominalism. What you are outlining here is just another argument against nominalism and materialism generally, in case materialism does indeed imply nominalism. That argument is just a sort of Argument from Universals, or some such argument akin to it, which states that universals, e.g. "redness" or "traingularity" and so forth, cannot coherently be reducible to material interactions thought-wise.

Its not muddleheaded. Its simply you being wrong. Concepts don't "exist". A concept can never jump out of imagination land and randomly materialize. That is what materialism is. It means that what physically exists only exists within the material. There is no imaginary or supernatural "existence" that can affect the physical world.

It doesn't mean that concepts debunk it. Its like saying fiction books don't exist. The books exist but the stories are merely stories. Words on paper meant to be delivered through a functional tool of laguage (yet another concept) that all only exists in the physical and material.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Its not muddleheaded. Its simply you being wrong. Concepts don't "exist". A concept can never jump out of imagination land and randomly materialize.

Right. If materialism is true, then a "concept" is nothing more than a thought in someone's brain and this is itself nothing more than a configuration of atoms firing concept-wise in one's brain. But, of course, we first need to consider whether atoms-firing x-wise or thought-wise can yield any "aboutness" concept in the first place, and for which I provided an argument to the contrary.

That is what materialism is. It means that what physically exists only exists within the material.

What is this I don't even

There is no imaginary or supernatural "existence" that can affect the physical world.

Right.

It doesn't mean that concepts debunk it.

When did I say that concepts debunk materialism?

Its like saying fiction books don't exist. The books exist but the stories are merely stories. Words on paper meant to be delivered through a functional tool of laguage (yet another concept) that all only exists in the physical and material.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right. If materialism is true, then a "concept" is nothing more than a thought in someone's brain and this is itself nothing more than a configuration of atoms firing concept-wise in one's brain. But, of course, we first need to consider whether atoms-firing x-wise or thought-wise can yield any "aboutness" concept in the first place, and for which I provided an argument to the contrary.

Where?

When did I say that concepts debunk materialism?

If you were trying to say otherwise or somehow have another objection then please phrase it.