Okay sir. What is argument from ignorance?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Things you don't like about Materialism
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
Okay sir. What is argument from ignorance?
The following definitions are from the current dictionaries. No words defined here have gone through some natural evolution in the past few hours:
materialism | Definition of materialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Philosophy
The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
the definition of materialism
the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Definition of MATERIALISM
1a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see[1] matter 2)
Again, the only reason that anyone claims that the above definitions do not correctly define the word "materialism" and that some other different definition does is because of the recognition that the metaphysical thesis defined by these above 3 definitions has been refuted by the findings and theories of modern physics. Right?
After you answer that question, you are welcomed to give a definition of another metaphysical thesis and show that it has been proven true by scientific experiment.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Looking into common dictionaries for philosophical terms and not only expect them to give you anything other than simplifications about those terms but also treating those simplifications as if they have some sort of authority over the subject is literally one of the most retarded mistakes one could make while studying philosophy.
I can't believe you are still stuck into those definitions after I have shown to you how 'materialism' is understood in different ways. I have provided a link to Encyclopedia Britannica. I have provided a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But you ignore anything that doesn't confirm your view.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
That is a link. You can click for an explanation.
I will post it again for convenience: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
So, why you think I am resorting to argument from ignorance?
I am pointing to the common sense observation that no created object has the ability to understand or explain its creator. A car cannot understand the car's designer. A character in a novel cannot understand its author. So, if you say that consciousness-life is a created out of matter interacting in some way, then how that consciousness is supposed to unravel the mechanism of its creation?
OTOH, when your whole theory (materialism) is based on unsubstantiated claim of abiogenesis and natural evolution of matter to life/intelligence, it is wrong. The intellect (manifest intelligence) cannot sense consciousness and therefore is taken as proof that consciousness does not exist beyond physical brain. So, this thinking limits consciousness to only the manifest senses and thoughts. This assumes that what is beyond one's senses does not exist. That, IMO, is argument from ignorance. Whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic-intellect.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You have made a claim: "The point is that created intelligence cannot reach its source.".
Rather than proving it, you wanted me to show you an example of 'created thing that understands its creator' and then insisting that you don't have to prove anything. In other words, you are stating that your claim is true merely because I can't show it to be false.
Cars and characters in a novel in a novel don't possess consciousness and intelligence. Your comparison is absurd.
And yet, that is where the natural sciences are driving us.
What do you mean by 'the intellect cannot sense consciousness' ?
What exists beyond one's sense can certainly exist. The issue is why we would assume it to exist.
As I see it, materialistic thinking is a form of instant gratification, and has no productive benefit in the long term. I think this is evident those who have gained material quickly, only to find it did not bring the bliss they thought it would, became disillusioned and/or depressed, and have gone as far as to take their own lives.
Certainly not. I have presented evidence of absence of intelligence of the level of their creators in created things.
Why absurd? Actually, this is the point.
That is your speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. There is no evidence of life coming out of matter.
There is no need to assume or prove that I exist. I being the seer-knower of mind-intellect, it is not possible for the mind to know "I" as a third person object.
Last edited:
I found the reverse was true, as being a materialist helped me recover from depression by believing there were material causes for the depression and anxiety, that it was a learned or conditioned behaviour that I could change, and generally placing more value on myself and accepting my own sex drive as a result of biology not individual choice. It was the belief that depression had rational causes and could be changed that gave me a way out (other than suicide).
Not saying it's true for everyone mind you, but its interesting to see how different people's perceptions are of materialism.
So I guess it's a big conspiracy among dictionaries to give a false definition of "materialism". After all, we can tell by the very word that the thesis of "materialism" has nothing to do with objects that have mass and volume.
Is there not a contradiction in this statement? You're saying here it was your beliefs that helped you recover from depression.
The depression came first. materialism came after and gave me a way to think about depression that offered a way out.
It seems to me a contradiction to assert that a metaphysical belief that one adpots is causally efficacious in a world where the thesis of materialism is true.
I would view materialism the same way as the law of gravity (though with much less certainty).
If I "know" about the law of gravity, I can utilise that knowledge to make a prediction that jumping off buildings will end badly. The "belief" in gravity gives you the insight to make good decisions.
In the case of materialism, accepting the view that consciousness is a product of matter (organised in a special way in the brain) means you can understand that I developed depression as part of a law-governed process. I was conditioned to be depressed, to be restricted and then shut down emotionally. Perpetuating that behaviour meant perpetuating depression. It is only by reversing it (often slowly), challenging my conditions and learning to be much more emotionally spontaneous and authentic I can start to recover.
i.e. I treat my mental processes as physical, law-governed/deterministic processes which are in principle predictable. However, I may not understand enough to change it the way I want so I have to continue to gain more knowledge to increase the change. (The same way someone has to learn how to meditate by practising it as a mental state).
As this refers to the inner world of the mind/brain, this may sound very alien, but I hope it makes sense.
Laika, I do hope you will forgive me for challenging you on a thesis or belief or idea that you say helped you recover from depression. I don't think there is a way for me to look like I'm doing something honorable here.
It is, moveover, mind-boggling to me that someone was analogize this:
"a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature" (which no one here has been able to argue is a true statement)
with this:
F = m1*m2/d^2
(which is a pretty good approximation of the mathematical relation that is true).
People were able to predict that jumping off the Tower of Pisa (or mountain cliffs) would not end well long before they knew anything about gavity.
It is, moveover, mind-boggling to me that someone was analogize this:
"a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature" (which no one here has been able to argue is a true statement)
with this:
F = m1*m2/d^2
(which is a pretty good approximation of the mathematical relation that is true).
If depression is a law-governed process like the gravitational force, then how did you change that law-governed process with your belief? One can't change anything about Newton's law or about the gravitational force itself with one's beliefs.
Yeah. It is a tricky one. I will concede that I cannot prove it is 100% true and just avoid anything like that.
Its the idea that depression has a cause-effect relationship. If consciousness is a product of matter and is determined by matter, it means that my mental state is (in part) conditioned. Once you understand the cause-effect relationships you can then start to change your behaviour to improve it. Its not instant, but it adds up;
- I can think about my personal history and ask myself "what caused this?" and "How did I get here?";
- I can ask myself what behaviours I have conditioned into and therefore are perpetuating depression and therefore need to be changed;
- When you are dealing with anxiety, mood swings, etc "knowing" that they are predictable means you can think about what event or situation started it. You can then say "I have a problem with X,Y,Z and need to do something about it".
Laika, I must say that you have enlightened me in showing me that I can appreciate and approve of ideas or beliefs that I disagree with. (I can defend people of wrongdoing much more easily than I can defend ideas that I consider erroneous.) I sincerely thank you for that.
Two and a half questions:
How do you square the willful or volitional acts that you have alluded to in your bulleted items in your above post with materialism? That is, how is it possible for someone to intentionally recognize "I have a problem with X, Y, Z and need to do something about it," then intentionally do something about it, in a world where all behavior is ultimately reducible matter?
I just noticed in the OP, in the communist propaganda that you quoted from Wikiwand (in the US we are required to call it "communist propaganda" whenever we see it), that materialism is contrasted with idealism only--not with the many other metaphysical theses. Do you reject, say, pluralism, which holds that a variety of different phenomena exist, including emergent properties, processes or objects that exhibit downward causation (i.e., violating the tenet of reductionism)?
Is the thesis that only upward causation occurs logical or justifiable if we cannot possibly determine that there exists a bottom level of reality from which causes originate?
Thanks. I was hoping this thread might do that. I wanted to know what people's views were to see if there were any patterns so I could address them in the future. hopefully I will get better at this.
Its a matters of degrees. I can have a degree of "knowledge" and a degree of "control" over the mental processes. It is not an act of will. As its deterministic, you can't just say "I'm going to be cured" and it happens. Rather, in those lucid moments you can say to yourself, "I think I've understood this, therefore I have an opportunity to do something about it". Whether it is true or not, the accumulation of those changes gives the impression that its helped recover from depression.
In my case, it came down to sexuality. As long as I repressed my sexuality (as a biochemical process in the body/brain) I was going to have problems. Regardless as to whether you have sex or not, the biochemcial process is still there and always will be and that sexual energy is going to be burnt off somehow. A freudian view is that anxiety and depression is a way of burninng off those chemicals without actually directly addressing sexuality. Its not a great anaology but should show that the biochemistry is a "flow" in the brain, so it has to go somewhere; If you think of the brain chemistry it like money, if you have £10 but are going to spend it no matter what and you say I'm going to save/repress this, you're going to spend it on something else. denying your sexual desires doesn't stop you having them.
The healthier alternative was not to suppress it, but to accept it. So as sexuality is a psychological process and not just a physical act, you can overcome the anxiety of thinking about sexual thoughts, fantasies, etc. In so far as the anxiety and depression is a mal-adjustment of a chemical process, re-adjusting it lifts your spirits and makes you happier. You have to learn how to be in tune with yourself and figure out what you actually want rather than what you are supposed to want because society taught you to be that way and "conditioned" you to be depressed. That's what it boils down to.
Its not scientific, but I think you can see how it's plausible.
I'm familiar with the terms here, but Dialectical Materialism is almost certianly not reductionist. It would absolutely say emergent properties originate from a "lower" form to develop a "higher" form. So in principle the chemical processes are a "lower" form, but become an emergent property in a biological "higher" form in life by abiogenisis.
Consciousness would be treated as an emergent property as well. The process of evolution means that life develops a nervous system as an emergent property as a means for interaction with its environment. The animal aspect of our consciousness is based on direct sensation of the environment, through touch, smell, sight, etc. In humans, a secondary signally process (another emergent property) develops through the use of language in to abstract ideas. This in principle would show how our consciousness and abstract ideas are emergent properties of our sensation and so have a material source.
In Marxism, Materialism is held to be in opposition to idealism. Materialism is the belief that everything has "material" causes (outside of the mind) whereas Idealism is the belief that consciousness causes everything. Idealism would cover a range of ideas from consciousness creating the universe by a deity, the existence of abstract ideas and principles as "pure" ideas independent of man (e.g. a principle which everyone should follow but is not recognised as a human creation) and then much more secular ideas about free will, consciousness being the source of social relations in a social contract (i.e. consent of the governed as originating from consciousness) and treating market transactions as the product of the mind by individuals setting prices by mutual agreement through demand and supply.
This is not reductionist however, because in the more advanced areas, idealism is not "false" but is merely an "error" which contains some truth. So if two people are in a market, yes they do make decisions over what they can buy or sell, but that does not mean those decisions are not also determined. i.e. a customer has run out of washing up powder, so that acts as the cause for them to go to the store and buy more.
Marxism/materialism is a dogma in asserting that a "bottom level of reality" exists. The more advanced the philosophical questions are, the more difficult it is to be sure that proposition is "true" or not.
My suspicion is that marxists would say ideas are products of human beings and are governed by the process of social evolution. Therefore our conceptions of knowledge, truth and logic are man-made and subject to evolution. Hence accepting materialism as a "dogma" is acceptable because all previous ideologies were dogmatic in having core ideas about the nature of reality and knowledge. Our ideas about the nature of reality, truth, knowledge and logic are so fundamental that they have cascading effects on everything else we believe. (i.e. there are layers in human thought and some layers are more fundamental than others and determine the content of the higher layers).
If you want a really good book on Marxist-Materialism, I can highly recommend the one in the link below. It's the third in a triology and won't make complete sense without the first two. But if your simply looking to get an impression that materialism can handle really advanced philosophical questions, it should get your attention even if you don't agree with it.
The Theory of Knowledge : Maurice Cornforth : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You have said and I quote: "You show me a created thing that understands its creator. There is nothing to prove."
You haven't shown evidence of absence and then made a conclusion in that quote. What you have done is tell me that unless I can prove your claim to be false, you don't have to prove anything about your claim. In other words, it is true unless I can prove it false.
Because it is a false equivalence.
This is indeed where natural sciences are taking us. One needs to look no further than wikipedia for quotes like this:
"Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, chemistry, and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.[13]
The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[15]as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today.
Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and is largely based upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16]
Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally thought that current life on Earth is descended from an RNA world,[17] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[18][19]
The classic Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the basic chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions have been proposed, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20] Complex organic molecules have been found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[21][22][23][24]"
And so what ?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
No conspiracy involved. It's just a matter of simplification that is involved when defining words.
Tread carefully.
The etymological fallacy is a thing.