Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[David T]

jj

I would like to see a reference to the proposal for evolution in 1200 AD. I consider Lucretius to be the earliest I can find that proposed something that could be called evolution.

From: Did Lucretius write about evolution and natural selection?

Robert Krulwich of NPR claims that Professor Stephen Greenblatt claims that Lucretius (around 99-55BC) said:

". . . moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction. There is no escape from this process. ... There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design.

All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time. The evolution is random, though in the case of living organisms, it involves a principle of natural selection. That is, species that are suited to survive and to reproduce successfully, endure, at least for a time; those that are not so well suited, die off quickly. But nothing — from our own species, to the planet on which we live, to the sun that lights our day — lasts forever. Only the atomas are immortal ..."

]. Random is an interest

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, yes.

Oh you have read the dialog between socrates and meno ? The first 7 pages ( in my version) one either gets socrates or does not. He at one point says " to bad meno you wont be around next week for the mysteries, everything would become clear". Ah yes the Elulician mysteries, not a single word ever written down. A mountain of words written about the mysteries by "scholars" and we I suppose could call them theories!!!! We can pick the "theory" we like but one then has to examine what went into naturally selecting the theory one selects. So if we roll over into the theory natural section we have naturally selected the narrative natural selection naturally. So what we have naturallu chosen affirms our sense of what it is we are looking at!!! It affirms our natural selection of natural selection. Since i am falling into a repeating pattern naturally selecting natural selection one then could be led to the belief self referencialism is fundemental truth in nature and in ones self. Thus the narrative natural selection i have naturally selected is reality in an infinite self selecting of natural selection!! Seems kinda telelogical somehow meno.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, yes.

I have to give a qualified yes and no here. The problem is that the concept a 'theory' can be so often misused. Charles Darwin did originally propose the Theory of Evolution, but the science itself has evolved it more of a science unto itself involving more than the Theory proposed by Darwin. Today I prefer to call the Science of Evolution.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, the *idea* of a perfect circle is in the brain, no the circles themselves.

That is just a tragic contradiction.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The materialist' position is that abstract objects do not exist, they are relegated (as the OP indicated) to be ideas, and ideas are relegated to be less than existent, or somehow extraneous to existence.

Abstractions do exist.
Mathematical forms do exist.
We use math every day, all the time,
without which these computers we are communicating with,
would not exist.

And yet,
when we look inside the brain
we see no perfect circles,

just like when we look inside a TV set
we do not see a miniature Vladimir Putin.

 

[Willamena]

Abstractions do exist.
Mathematical forms do exist.
We use math every day, all the time,
without which these computers we are communicating with,
would not exist.

And yet,
when we look inside the brain
we see no perfect circles,

just like when we look inside a TV set
we do not see a miniature Vladimir Putin.

You get no arguement from me.

Circles are symbols, they exist as meaningful representations of mathematical principles.

 

[1137]

Have we ever gotten to the root of why some people need, so badly, for materialism to be undermined?

I know in my case it's simply the fact that such a nonsensical position is so popular, especially among the supposed "intellectual elite." History shows quite clearly what happens when the self-signed elite have crazy ideas.

 

[Willamena]

I know in my case it's simply the fact that such a nonsensical position is so popular, especially among the supposed "intellectual elite." History shows quite clearly what happens when the self-signed elite have crazy ideas.

Materialism was debunked in the 18th Century by David Hume, so it's a bit surprising that there is anyone willing to defend it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I know in my case it's simply the fact that such a nonsensical position is so popular,

A "nonsensical" position that you admit is part of your worldview, no?
How can you claim to accept that there is a physical world on the one hand, and reject it as a nonsensical position on the other?

History shows quite clearly what happens when the self-signed elite have crazy ideas.

Ah... So after being an acceptable (and simultaneously nonsensical) position, it's also a conspiracy theory held by the "elites"?

Have you attempted to answer which of the other positions (or assumptions) of reality have the ability to be repeatable and to predict outcomes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why number 1? Platonism recognizes things like natural kinds and the existence of Forms - objective characteristics that provide the essence of objects. If Platonism is not true then all characteristics, identification, etc are simple mental fabrications. Without it science itself would not be possible, for science relies on the being objective characteristics to study.

Nonsense.

Of course how we view physical objects is a function of mental constructs.

For instance: a river is a body of water that's essentially linear (though we allow it a finite width and depth). A lake is a body of water that's essentially planar (though we allow it a finite depth). What's the difference between a narrow lake and a wide river? Absolutely nothing except our attitude toward it.

But do you think that what we call a body of water has any effect at all on how the body of water behaves?

When we talk about objects and forms, we're really talking about mental models of reality. As a model, it only includes the attributes that are significant to us. If our model is sound, its predictions will agree closely with our observations; if it isn't sound, then they won't... and then we need to re-evaluate whether our model is correct and whether it's detailed enough to account for everything that's important.

But all of this is really in our heads. When it comes right down to it, the universe is just a collection of energy fields of varying characteristics, and our concept of things in the universe is just for convenience.

 

[1137]

A "nonsensical" position that you admit is part of your worldview, no?
How can you claim to accept that there is a physical world on the one hand, and reject it as a nonsensical position on the other?


Ah... So after being an acceptable (and simultaneously nonsensical) position, it's also a conspiracy theory held by the "elites"?

Have you attempted to answer which of the other positions (or assumptions) of reality have the ability to be repeatable and to predict outcomes?

Oh good, now you're creating a fallacy that if you reject physical monism you reject all physical existence. Cute.

Nonsense.

Of course how we view physical objects is a function of mental constructs.

For instance: a river is a body of water that's essentially linear (though we allow it a finite width and depth). A lake is a body of water that's essentially planar (though we allow it a finite depth). What's the difference between a narrow lake and a wide river? Absolutely nothing except our attitude toward it.

But do you think that what we call a body of water has any effect at all on how the body of water behaves?

When we talk about objects and forms, we're really talking about mental models of reality. As a model, it only includes the attributes that are significant to us. If our model is sound, its predictions will agree closely with our observations; if it isn't sound, then they won't... and then we need to re-evaluate whether our model is correct and whether it's detailed enough to account for everything that's important.

But all of this is really in our heads. When it comes right down to it, the universe is just a collection of energy fields of varying characteristics, and our concept of things in the universe is just for convenience.

So all characteristics are on our head? You realize you've moved to idealism now yes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So all characteristics are on our head?

No; our mental models are in our head, as are our decisions about which characteristics are important and which can be ignored.

If our mental models are sound, they'll agree with external reality, which is not in our heads.

You realize you've moved to idealism now yes?

No, I haven't. I think you've been doing some bad inference again. Read my post again if you're unclear about what I'm saying.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Oh good, now you're creating a fallacy that if you reject physical monism you reject all physical existence. Cute.

I am not.
I'm asking you to defend your stance and previous statement.

How can you ascribe to the acceptance of physical existence, and then turn around and call physical monism nonsensical? Unless you have validating evidence that there is anything else, then it is the only sensible position, is it not?

We agree that physical existence is validated in that we both accept it as (at least) part of existence, right? (You just said as much)

So then, how can you reject physicalism on the one hand as nonsensical and then accept it on the other as PART of existence? How can you do that without contradicting yourself? How can you do that without assuming or suggesting something more? How can you suggest something more without substantiating evidence?

(This is what people mean when they are telling you that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof...)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Also...

Have you attempted to answer which of the other positions (or assumptions) of reality have the ability to be repeatable and to predict outcomes?

 

[Willamena]

Unless you have validating evidence that there is anything else, then it is the only sensible position, is it not?

If you accept the validity of a symbol, or the existence of psychological disorders, or that there is truth, that is enough to thwart eliminative materialism/physicalism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you accept the validity of a symbol, or the existence of psychological disorders, or that there is truth, that is enough to thwart eliminative materialism/physicalism.

How do you reckon? Accepting that aspects of the physical world can be interpreted in different ways doesn't negate the existence of the external physical world... This is why all of those things that you've mentioned are 100% fluid, subjective, constructs.

 

[1137]

No; our mental models are in our head, as are our decisions about which characteristics are important and which can be ignored.

But you seem to imply that the only difference between things is mental in nature, like a river to a lake, despite that being narrow versus being wide is itself an objective difference in characteristics.

If our mental models are sound, they'll agree with external reality, which is not in our heads.


No, I haven't. I think you've been doing some bad inference again. Read my post again if you're unclear about what I'm saying.

You said that the difference between a river and lake is a mental construct, which would be idealism because the differences between the two rely on the mind to construct them.

I am not.
I'm asking you to defend your stance and previous statement.

How can you ascribe to the acceptance of physical existence, and then turn around and call physical monism nonsensical? Unless you have validating evidence that there is anything else, then it is the only sensible position, is it not?

We have far more certainty that our inner, immaterial existence is real than even the world of matter, which immediately puts physicalism in a question. The very fact of mind-body property dualism suggests there's not just the physical, and it's actually on the physicalist or idealist to reduce one into the other (and at least idealism can get somewhat close unlike physicalism!)

We agree that physical existence is validated in that we both accept it as (at least) part of existence, right? (You just said as much)

Yes.

then, how can you reject physicalism on the one hand as nonsensical and then accept it on the other as PART of existence? How can you do that without contradicting yourself? How can you do that without assuming or suggesting something more? How can you suggest something more without substantiating evidence?

Physicalism is that only the physical exists, and self-evidently this seems to not be the case. It's on the physicalist to provide a mechanism or method of reductionism, which it has never even gotten close to. That's where you need to get some substantiating evidence, it's dualism that the evidence supports.

(This is what people mean when they are telling you that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof...)

They falsely assume they have the default position in the first place so that's not a big deal.

Also...Have you attempted to answer which of the other positions (or assumptions) of reality have the ability to be repeatable and to predict outcomes?

Actually yeah, Setian metaphysics explains the world exactly as is without faith or hope in future knowledge, answering all the problems of monism and substance dualism. In the middle of writing that right now, should be up today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you seem to imply that the only difference between things is mental in nature, like a river to a lake, despite that being narrow versus being wide is itself an objective difference in characteristics.

Some wide rivers are wider than some long, narrow lakes. The difference between them is that for the river, we've decided that it's more important to consider it as essentially linear, and for the lake, we've decided that it's more important to consider it a claim. But what we call it and what we decide is important to us about the body of water doesn't matter to how the fluid in it behaves.

You said that the difference between a river and lake is a mental construct, which would be idealism because the differences between the two rely on the mind to construct them.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with idealism. Whatever we call it, there's a real object; the label we use is just an expression of our attitude toward that object.

Physicalism is that only the physical exists, and self-evidently this seems to not be the case.

That depends what you're considering physical. What are you considering physical and non-physical, and why do you draw the line where you do?

 

[jonathan180iq]

We have far more certainty that our inner, immaterial existence is real than even the world of matter, which immediately puts physicalism in a question.

Unless you can show examples of those experiences existing without the physical mind and body then, no... we don't. The subjective explanations that we give things does not suddenly make them anything more or less than what they are on their own.

Imagine a thing that does not exist. Now that you can imagine it, does it exist?

The very fact of mind-body property dualism suggests there's not just the physical, and it's actually on the physicalist or idealist to reduce one into the other (and at least idealism can get somewhat close unlike physicalism!)

This has been your stance since you started making these types of threads and you've yet to substantiate that claim.

Without the physical mind, for example, there isn't even the option of interpreting any thing in any way. (What was the world to you before you were born and before your physical self developed? What will the world be after you are dead?)

Physicalism is that only the physical exists, and self-evidently this seems to not be the case. It's on the physicalist to provide a mechanism or method of reductionism, which it has never even gotten close to. That's where you need to get some substantiating evidence, it's dualism that the evidence supports.

We can claim, imagine, and interpret that it not be the case - but that does not make it so.

The world was here before I was born - giving me a process through which to become - and it will remain after I am gone, as is evidenced by the fact that I have outlived people who came before me.

Do you reject any part of that last statement?

Actually yeah, Setian metaphysics explains the world exactly as is without faith or hope in future knowledge, answering all the problems of monism and substance dualism. In the middle of writing that right now, should be up today.

Well, I look forward to reading that as well and bickering about it to no end.

 

[1137]

Some wide rivers are wider than some long, narrow lakes. The difference between them is that for the river, we've decided that it's more important to consider it as essentially linear, and for the lake, we've decided that it's more important to consider it a claim. But what we call it and what we decide is important to us about the body of water doesn't matter to how the fluid in it behaves.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with idealism. Whatever we call it, there's a real object; the label we use is just an expression of our attitude toward that object.

That depends what you're considering physical. What are you considering physical and non-physical, and why do you draw the line where you do?

If it is a real object then we come again to the pointed table and "pointedness." If it is not a real object, then it must be some sort of idealism, for that's the only real solution to the objects not really existing. As far as physical, I mean everything from quantum physics to all matter in the universe as a whole.

Unless you can show examples of those experiences existing without the physical mind and body then, no... we don't. The subjective explanations that we give things does not suddenly make them anything more or less than what they are on their own.

Why would I need to show a mind and body existing without a mind and body? Our explanation may not be real, but what we are describing is real, and the fact that we have the subjective experience is real.

Imagine a thing that does not exist. Now that you can imagine it, does it exist?

In the mind, yes it does. This is precisely how architecture works.

This has been your stance since you started making these types of threads and you've yet to substantiate that claim.

it seems that the internal experience of individuals which do not directly interact, and the external world we all interact with, are wholly different things. The most compelling evidence of this is property dualism, which shows that the mind and objective, physical world are categorically difference. Let’s look at several examples. First, as listed by /u/hammiesink on Reddit: mental events do not have spacial dimensions where matter does, it is possible that matter is an illusion but impossible that one’s mind is an illusion (see above), mental events deal with abstract objects but matter only deals with real particular objects, mental events are private but material events can be shared, and subjective experience accompanies mental events but not material ones. /u/Honey_Llama lists, among others: the mind has intentionality but matter does not, the mind allows for free will but matter does not, and the mind is nonphysical but matter is physical. We can directly poke at anyone’s brain under the right conditions, but can literally never gain access to their experience. Yes, mind and brain are obviously deeply correlated, but correlation is not causation.

Without the physical mind, for example, there isn't even the option of interpreting any thing in any way. (What was the world to you before you were born and before your physical self developed? What will the world be after you are dead?)

We did not have any awareness before birth, and anything we assume about it relies on inner processes. If right now you asked me how there could be a mind without a brain, its just as much of a question for the idealist of how you could explain there being a brain without a mind. Nothing about this implies which one controls the other, only connection.

The world was here before I was born - giving me a process through which to become - and it will remain after I am gone, as is evidenced by the fact that I have outlived people who came before me.

Do you reject any part of that last statement?

I accept the world and it not relying on my mind, but I reject that it reduces to matter.

 

[Willamena]

How do you reckon? Accepting that aspects of the physical world can be interpreted in different ways doesn't negate the existence of the external physical world... This is why all of those things that you've mentioned are 100% fluid, subjective, constructs.

Accepting immaterial objects does not negate the existence of the physical world. But that's not at issue. The "subjective constructs" are mental entities, not physical objects. An interpretation, an idea, a concept, a plan, a belief, an abstract--all of these entities have existence, but are not physical. To deny that they exist is what is at issue.