Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Looncall]

Energy exists, and energy is not an object that has mass and volume.

Ho-hum. Energy is not a substance but merely a shorthand description for the states of objects.

I know there are lots of charlatans promoting varieties of woo around energy. One needs to be vigilant to avoid being taken in by con artists, or ancient errors.

 

[Nous]

A computer's hard drive and it's programs are both physical, even if software and hardware are distinct, if not entirely separate. The operations of a computer program is dependent on the hardware but is abstracted through data transcription. Talking about the 'health of a motherboard us not like talking about the 'health' of a program, but both of those things are physical. The former a physical object and the latter a physical process. Similarly, operations of mind are like computer programs executed by the hardware of the brain.

I'm not really interested in going down a month long rabbit hole of debate on this analogy, but that's how I view it.

I don't have a clue how any of that explains what you mean by "exercising of the mind in productive ways" and "having goals" in a world where the thesis of materialism is true.

Are you saying that computer hard drives have goals or exercise their minds in productive ways?

 

[Nous]

Ho-hum. Energy is not a substance

Correct.

but merely a shorthand description for the states of objects.

Energy is a quantity, and it exists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

these are the logical conclusions of material monism.

I disagree.

all we need to address is the material aspects of a person

In MM, psychology is a material aspect of someone, because minds are physical processes based on material brains. No different than computer programs running on a hard drive. Just because you can't see a picture of the ocean when looking at circuit chips doesn't change that the data is physically present on the hard drive. The brain/mind connection to a MM is just a more complex (And more messy) hardware/software connection.

if we follow MM to it's conclusion, then something like the laws of logic or mathematical ontology, which cannot be accessed in a material way, cannot exist.

Not independently of human thought, no. But again, no different than language. If all life in the universe was extinguished, and all records humans ever made, the word 'leaf would no longer exist. Nor woukd matg or logic, as these are conceptualization that don't exist outside minds, running on brain platforms.

We aren't talking about anything paranormal, we are talking about actual experiments carried out by numerous scientists.

That's what people say about ESP. Numerous scientists have also said that the l-field conclusion isn't supported by the data.

I'm agree with you on this, but it doesn't follow from MM. In fact, in a purely deterministic system, the only kind compatible with MM, medicine will not arise to the level it has because it everything flows ever forward on one direction. There is no questioning, willful manipulation, or fighting against nature in hard determinism. More importantly, things like cognitive therapy would have no hope of working.

Pretty much none of this paragraph is true. You're conflating concepts of certain types of naturalism and hard determinism with MM. Which is neither by necessity. Heck even a hard determinist naturalist could look at that and say "using tools to better survival odds is neither unnatural nor determined to fail, at any level of tool sophistication."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't have a clue how any of that explains what you mean by "exercising of the mind in productive ways" and "having goals" in a world where the thesis of materialism is true.

Are you saying that computer hard drives have goals or exercise their minds in productive ways?

No, I think it's pretty obvious how the illustration is meant to be used, but as an aside, do you believe it would be impossible for a machine to have goals or a mind? Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to wonder if the materialists of the OP are even logically possible. I doubt they are.

 

[Nous]

No, I think it's pretty obvious how the illustration is meant to be used[

It definitely isn't obvious to me how your statements about computer hard drives is supposed to relate to your affirmations of "exercising of the mind in productive ways" and "having goals".

but as an aside, do you believe it would be impossible for a machine to have goals or a mind? Why?

I think any "goals" a machine might be said to "have" are those it has been programmed to have. I know of no reason to believe that any known sort of machine or any kind of machine that I can imagine has or can have conscious experience or free will--which I would say are the two most defining aspects of the concept of "mind".

 

[Polymath257]

Correct.
Energy is a quantity, and it exists.

Energy is similar to other things like momentum and charge. It is a quantity associated with things. Neither energy, nor momentum or charge exist without some material thing it is associated with.

 

[Nous]

Neither energy, nor momentum or charge exist without some material thing it is associated with.

Cite the experiment where that hypothesis was tested.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think any "goals" a machine might be said to "have" are those it has been programmed to have. I know of no reason to believe that any known sort of machine or any kind of machine that I can imagine has or can have conscious experience or free will--which I would say are the two most defining aspects of the concept of "mind".

What if the computer could modify its own programming? What if the program is sufficiently complicated that the generalized 'rules' about its programs were just tyat: generalizations? That would mean what seems to be on the surface the ability to choose against programming (or nature) is just a case of misunderstanding the programming (or nature.)
You ever read Daniel Denett's black box?

 

[Polymath257]

Cite the experiment where that hypothesis was tested.

No example of energy unassociated with some particle (photons, for example) has ever been found. In fact, energy is one component of the energy-momentum vector associated with particles.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes. Not in any way to the extent of Islamic extremism, fascism, or other rising positions in the world, but dangerous nonetheless. Why?

1. The death of skepticism: even the slightest skeptical questioning casts doubt on materialism, for how can we reduce the mind to matter when we know the mind directly and matter through it? Can we trust our senses that there's a physical world out there? Is there really no other valid possibility in the world? Skepticism is about doubt whereas materialism is a position of certainty. There's very little questioning of it and that questioning is dogmatically brushed off rather than addressed. With the increasing popularity of materialism this is very dangerous.

2. Neglect of the mind and its role in health and happiness is dangerous. Even just the simple way we perceive our situation has an effect on us, such as whether we believe we are happy or not. To have any hope of treating the mentally ill we need to address both mind and brain, not simply the latter. We have to address subjective symptoms, not simply what physical ailments are immediately noticable.

3. The rejection of all immaterial things completely destroys concepts such as math and logic. In materialism these things must be mind dependent, where they exist as concepts, at least according to materialism. But the idea that things like math and logic, which lead us to objective truth and intelligent thought, are mind dependent is extremely dangerous. It basically allows for whatever one wants to be true to be treated as true, because logical and mathematical truths are more or less subjective and fabricated. Any group that teaches things like logic to be relative posses a threat to knowledge and growth. An ignorant community is one ripe for the plucking!

4. Life-Fields are another thing rejected by materialists. Despite being confirmed by thousands of experiments, and leading to massive break throughs in medicine like predicting ovulation, materialists reject the idea of L-Fields, and in fact likely never have heard of them due to them being ignored in mainstream science specifically for not fitting with materialism (see #1). Life-Fields can help us predict things like ovulation, cancer, birth defects in a developing egg, highs and lows of mental stability, even things like when would be the best time for someone to learn something. The benefits to human life could be so numerous, but alas since L-Fields bring questions like Teleology and design to the table, they are simply ignored by materialists who care neither for scientific truth nor human life.

5. Materialism greatly implies a belief in hard predeterminism, as there is nothing to stand against the every flowing onslaught of nature. If this this the case there's simply no hope in ever changing or improving upon any situation. Why would we go to a doctor or see a counselor if nothing we do can actually change anything? Of course some realize, almost self evidently for many of us, that we can indeed go against the flow of material nature. We can manipulate it such as to make medications in this example, or use the strength of our mind to recondition the way we act and think. These being only two small examples!

Now sure, materialists are not going around killing people, I'd never pretend they're as bad as extremist groups like ISIL. But materialism is dangerous in a much longer run, it's taking over culture far more quickly than ISIL could ever hope to, and it's ingrained in us for most of our lives, stuck as part of our education systems, dominating the way we view and treat human life. There may not be genocide, but it's still dangerous nonetheless. It's led to a death of doubt and questioning, led to a rejection of the power and independent existence of the mind, it is forced to push a view of logic and mathematics (which sciences like physics rely on) as mind dependent and therefore not objective or real, it ignores hard science that can benefit humanity simply so that it's authority as leading philosophy cannot be questioned, and it leads to a point of nihilism where we may as well wallow in our problems because nothing can stand up to the flow of the material world.

I'd say the problems of any belief, really begin when that belief is no longer acknowledged as such, and becomes 'undeniable truth'... and hence those who do not share the belief become 'deniers' inherently intellectually inferior, attracting derision etc, justifying having this 'truth' forced on them for their own, and the greater good....

Of course this can and does happen in some religions at different points in history, (usually when mixed with politics) but still the concept of 'personal faith' may be cherished also. While the refusal to acknowledge personal 'belief' and the assumption of 'inherent intellectual superiority' almost seems a prerequisite when it comes to materialism/ atheism.

I think the vast majority of materilaist/atheist are well meaning people who want the best for everybody and do not want any belief forced- but the danger as always lies in mixing the ideology with politics, atheist regimes in the recent past certainly have explicitly and violently oppressed people of any other belief on massive scales

 

[George-ananda]

I think the danger of dogmatic materialists is their desire to limit inquiry, interest and investigation into many paranormal/crypto/alien areas.

They will say there is nothing in those things that have shown themselves worthy yet. This is the danger of dogmatism in my opinion. Critical consideration secretly gets replaced by defense of a worldview. Fortunately though, a sizeable minority continue on with these subjects despite the ridicule.

I do believe there are dogmatic materialists that knee-jerk attack contrary evidence and they are a danger but only in slowing the speed of knowledge progression.

 

[1137]

I have to wonder if the materialists of the OP are even logically possible. I doubt they are.

I've realized most people don't actually follow these logical conclusions luckily. We seem to realize duality inherently.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have to wonder if the materialists of the OP are even logically possible. I doubt they are.

I think the OP is trying to stick a level of fatalism to determinism that I don't actually see determinists exhibit or conclude from determinism. Quite the opposite, most hard determinists I know look at fatalism as just as supernatually irrelevant as free will
Determinism vs. Fatalism | Naturalism.org

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've realized most people don't actually follow these logical conclusions luckily. We seem to realize duality inherently.

Rather they disagree that your conclusions are logically correct, or that fatalism is inherently part of determinism or that hard determinism is inherently part of materialism.

 

[Nous]

No example of energy unassociated with some particle (photons, for example) has ever been found.

So there is no evidence that substantiates your claim that "neither energy, nor momentum or charge exist without some material thing it is associated with"?

What was energy associated with prior to the creation of particles?

 

[Nous]

I've realized most people don't actually follow these logical conclusions luckily. We seem to realize duality inherently.

Agree.

 

[Nous]

I think the danger of dogmatic materialists is their desire to limit inquiry, interest and investigation into many paranormal/crypto/alien areas.

They will say there is nothing in those things that have shown themselves worthy yet. This is the danger of dogmatism in my opinion. Critical consideration secretly gets replaced by defense of a worldview. Fortunately though, a sizeable minority continue on with these subjects despite the ridicule.

I do believe there are dogmatic materialists that knee-jerk attack contrary evidence and they are a danger but only in slowing the speed of knowledge progression.

Agree.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We seem to realize duality inherently.

Imo this is like telling an atheist they're not committing crimes because *really* they 'realize l' God's authority. Its speaking on their behalf and not actually listening to the reasons they're giving you.