Philosophical Materialism

[Tathagata]

The synergistic sum of all three. The complete being, body, mind, and chi.

So he's the totality of all things?

We have a term for that you know. "Universe" or "existence" are both words that can be used to describe the totality of all things.

.

 

[Storm]

So he's the totality of all things?

Not quite, no. I believe in a sort of theological multiverse.

We have a term for that you know. "Universe" or "existence" are both words that can be used to describe the totality of all things.

Forgive me my precision.

 

[Tathagata]

Not quite, no. I believe in a sort of theological multiverse.

Even still, the "Multiverse" would be considered the "totality of all things." I too, being a Buddhist, also believe in a Multiverse, though I don't understand what you mean by "theological Multiverse."

 

[Storm]

Even still, the "Multiverse" would be considered the "totality of all things." I too, being a Buddhist, also believe in a Multiverse, though I don't understand what you mean by "theological Multiverse."

I mean that there are other Godiverses out there. In my theological jargon, "universe" means not our Godiverse, but the level of reality they operate in.

 

[Tathagata]

I mean that there are other Godiverses out there.

Well, I guess we're on the exact same page then, except I don't like to use the word "God."

(Of course, that's excluding our differences when it comes to panpsychism vs. the three elements.)

 

[Nepenthe]

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism is a form of physicalism and belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism and spiritualism.
source: Wiki

As most of you know, I am definitely not a materialist. Further, while it may have provided some scientific benefit in the past, I believe it's a school of thought that has outlived its usefulness.

To kick off the debate, how do materialists explain the placebo effect? If consciousness is simply an emergent property of matter, how can it influence matter?

I'll just parrot Penumbra's post #20 for my opinion of materialism. Broadly speaking my understanding of reductive materialism simply states that all phenomena are physical; everything, including consciousness, is the product of atoms, molecules, energy, particles, etc. The "mind" is an intertheoretic reduction: mental states are synonymous with physical brain states like water is identical to H2O as sound is essentially compression waves passing through a medium. I don't see how the placebo effect is invalidated by reductive materialism or that the existence of a placebo effect contradicts materialism.

I not only think that materialism hasn't outlived its usefulness, I see dualism in all of its variations as a sort of geist of the gaps. Neuro-scientists have minimized the necessity for any special category for consciousness; the attempts of dualists to fill the admittedly vast unanswered questions of the mind with Cartesian-type theories have been made progressively irrelevant as once seemingly unanswerable aspects of the brain have been answered.

I know the thread isn't about the placebo effect but it's commonly brought up in mind/body debates so I'll expound on it. The problem is that I have serious doubts the placebo effect really exists.

The first issue is that placebo effect is often misinterpreted: it's not just a sugar pill or false treatment to induce a positive health effect, it's not a specific impact or a certain state of "mind" that's influencing or healing the physical body. The term placebo is used to explain all manner of applied effects in a study, that is, the placebo effect is a misnomer because it's "not a single effect but the net result of many possible factors." Factors that prop up the non-influential placebo effect may include researcher bias, the subjects' desire to please the researchers-subjects who volunteer tend to actively pursue a healthier lifestyle- as well as other forms of treatment besides the one being tested. There is simply little empirical evidence that a "mind" can speed up healing. Well conducted clinical trials are coming up empty handed with the validity of any placebo effect and those that do report an effect are reporting a minimal one at best; the majority of purported placebo induced health improvements are due to researcher and patient bias:

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.
​

People engaged in clinical trials tend to expect something to occur so they notice and report an improvement (that is feeling better or an alleviation in symptoms) with greater frequency and with more conviction. People who are sick assume the drug or placebo they're receiving will make them feel better so when they do improve they attribute it to the treatment. But if they do not improve or if they get worse they tend to minimize the failure of the placebo and shrug it off as just a bad day. But health is variable, health is often random and ups and downs are perfectly normal and may have nothing to do with the placebo. It's selection bias that inflates the frequency of the alleged placebo effect.

Another recent comprehensive study concluded that:

We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.

​

As the evidence accumulates and studies become better controlled it looks more an more like the placebo effect is false and using it as evidence of any form of mind-body connection, much less any form of Cartesian dualism, is simply unwarranted.

 

[dust1n]

IOW, you don't understand it, either, but just go with it?

Aye, I won't sport materialism. I was just providing what the argument would be based off of. I do not know the intricacies of the placebo effect. However I do understand that the information provided is stating that the 'placebo effect' takes place at a certain human receptor and can be recreated.

You're grasping....

Grasping what? You are asking me justice is material and I don't even think justice exists.

 

[dust1n]

:bump: