Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[sayak83]

All I can do is point out the facts. Contrary to your claim, the thesis of materialism is a monism. As according to the definition quoted above, the thesis of materialism posits that all phenomena are just matter and the motions of matter. And we know that physics proves that that thesis is false. Energy is not matter, and is not reducible to matter.

You have claimed that two sorts of phenomena exist: matter, and its "property," energy. Again, there is no evidence obtained by the use of any scientific method by which to conclude that all phenomena are either matter or energy.

The thesis of materialism is false, and your dualistic pseudo-materialistic thesis is false.

All you have so far done is to ignore mine and everyone else's posts and repeating yourself. So please continue your merry way.

 

[Polymath257]

So, no one here can define "matter" and show that show that the evidence obtained by use of "the methods of science" lead to the conclusion that everything that exists is matter?

Most physicists today shy away from using the term 'matter' because it just isn't useful for them. Chemists tend to use the term to denote anything made from atoms and tend to think of protons and electrons as 'matter', but no formal definition is ever given.

In particular, since electrons appear to have no volume, they would not classify as matter in your definition. That shows your definition is faulty and not 'materialism'.

And that is why 'naturalism' tends to be used more often today. Whether you consider light to be 'matter' or not is a matter of taste. The same is true for all bosons. But all are clearly *natural* as opposed to being supernatural.

So what does it take to be 'natural'? That's easy: it is detectable through interactions with objects that have previously been determined to be 'natural'. Starting with objects composed of atoms, we get a full definition of the term.

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't my fault that the discoveries of science prove that the thesis of materialism is false.

Only if you use your idiosyncratic definition of 'materialism' and of 'matter'.

 

[Nous]

All you have so far done is to ignore mine and everyone else's posts and repeating yourself.

I pointed out the ignorant error of your claim that materialism is not a monism. You haven't been able to define "matter" and argue for the thesis of materialism. You haven't been able define "the methods of the natural science" and show that everything that exists is accordingly "natural". Fundamentalist Christians do as well in defending the thesis of the virgin Mary as you have done in defending the theses of materialism and naturalism.

 

[Polymath257]

All I can do is point out the facts. Contrary to your claim, the thesis of materialism is a monism. As according to the definition quoted above, the thesis of materialism posits that all phenomena are just matter and the motions of matter. And we know that physics proves that that thesis is false. Energy is not matter, and is not reducible to matter.

Energy is a property of the motions of matter. So are momentum, spin, and other such concepts from physics.

The problem is that you use a strange definition of the term 'matter' which excludes many things we usually consider to be 'matter'.

*Nobody* intended to exclude electrons from being 'matter' and *nobody* intended to exclude light from being 'material'.

That means *your* definition is the one at fault.

You have claimed that two sorts of phenomena exist: matter, and its "property," energy. Again, there is no evidence obtained by the use of any scientific method by which to conclude that all phenomena are either matter or energy.

In fact, the opposite: there are also things like momentum and spin. But energy, momentum, and spin are all properties of the motion of matter.

The thesis of materialism is false, and your dualistic pseudo-materialistic thesis is false.

Nope.

 

[Nous]

Most physicists today shy away from using the term 'matter' because it just isn't useful for them. Chemists tend to use the term to denote anything made from atoms and tend to think of protons and electrons as 'matter', but no formal definition is ever given.

In particular, since electrons appear to have no volume, they would not classify as matter in your definition. That shows your definition is faulty and not 'materialism'.

And that is why 'naturalism' tends to be used more often today. Whether you consider light to be 'matter' or not is a matter of taste. The same is true for all bosons. But all are clearly *natural* as opposed to being supernatural.

So what does it take to be 'natural'? That's easy: it is detectable through interactions with objects that have previously been determined to be 'natural'. Starting with objects composed of atoms, we get a full definition of the term.

So you can't argue that either the thesis of materialism or naturalism is true?

 

[Nous]

Energy is a property of the motions of matter. So are momentum, spin, and other such concepts from physics.

The problem is that you use a strange definition of the term 'matter'

I have used the definition of "matter" that is still found in many chemistry textbooks.

Objects that take up space and have mass are called matter.​

What is Matter?

If you disagree with that definition, provide your own definition, then state your argument for materialism.

The thesis of materialism is false, and your dualistic pseudo-materialistic thesis is false.

Nope

Prove it.

 

[Nous]

I beginning to agree with @1137 that materialism is "dangerous". It is obvously something that some people assert and espouse even when they can't define it or logically defend it. It's bad religion.

 

[Polymath257]

I have used the definition of "matter" that is still found in many chemistry textbooks.

Objects that take up space and have mass are called matter.​

What is Matter?

If you disagree with that definition, provide your own definition, then state your argument for materialism.

Prove it.

I disagree with your definition of materialism, which I find to be equivalent to naturalism. And I have defined naturalism.

 

[Polymath257]

I have used the definition of "matter" that is still found in many chemistry textbooks.

Objects that take up space and have mass are called matter.​

What is Matter?
.

Seriously??? You use a 4th grade description??

 

[Nous]

I disagree with your definition of materialism

I quoted the definition of "materialism" from this dictionary: the definition of materialism If you don't like it, provide your own definition, then state your argument. Do forget to define "matter".

 

[Nous]

Seriously??? You use a 4th grade description??

That's the level of ideas about "matter". Note the next sentences: "Everything around you is made up of matter. Chocolate cake is made up of matter. You are made of matter." I think the author is trying to argue for materialism.

Anyway, be sure to provide your source for whatever definition of "matter" your argument for "materialism" entails.

 

[Polymath257]

I quoted the definition of "materialism" from this dictionary: the definition of materialism If you don't like it, provide your own definition, then state your argument. Do forget to define "matter".

Once again, my definition of materialism is equivalent to my definition of naturalism. And I gave that above.

 

[Polymath257]

That's the level of ideas about "matter". Note the next sentences: "Everything around you is made up of matter. Chocolate cake is made up of matter. You are made of matter." I think the author is trying to argue for materialism.

Anyway, be sure to provide your source for whatever definition of "matter" your argument for "materialism" entails.

I think the term 'matter' is outdated and not very useful for the subatomic realm. That is why I support the term 'naturalism'.

Let's face it, the question of whether electrons qualify as 'matter' isn't going to be brought up in 4th grade explanations.

But the basic idea that matter and its motions do determine things like sound, pressure, energy, and consciousness is still valid.

 

[Polymath257]

So you can't argue that either the thesis of materialism or naturalism is true?

I think that naturalism is true. It follows from the definitions of 'natural' and of 'exists'.

 

[Nous]

I think that naturalism is true. It follows from the definitions of 'natural' and of 'exists'.

So you can't argue that the thesis is true?

 

[Polymath257]

So you can't argue that the thesis is true?

What does it mean to 'exist'? It means that it can be detected through its interactions with things that are ultimately made of atoms. Since that is also the definition of what it takes to be 'natural', all that exists is natural.

 

[Nous]

What does it mean to 'exist'? It means that it can be detected through its interactions with things that are ultimately made of atoms. Since that is also the definition of what it takes to be 'natural', all that exists is natural.

State your argument like this:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore, everything that exists is "natural".

 

[Nous]

What does it mean to 'exist'? It means that it can be detected

"No one has ever seen or touched energy . . ." Davies and Gribbin, The Matter Myth.

 

[Jumi]

I beginning to agree with @1137 that materialism is "dangerous". It is obvously something that some people assert and espouse even when they can't define it or logically defend it. It's bad religion.

If you think this discussion is dangerous then I question your ability to judge "dangerous".