Things you don't like about Materialism

[PureX]

We ARE just meatbags, though. Doesn't mean we don't have to care about meatbags.

No, we really aren't. We're self aware expressions of being. We are the means by which the universe is discovering and experiencing itself. This transcends the "bag-o-meat" ideal by a conceptual lightyear.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And the same goes for the converse? That is: until we find some sort of verifiable evidence that conscious experience and free will are produced by something in brains, it seem kind of silly to suggest that they are.

Except that we have actual evidence that the converse is true. Damage to the brain can have a direct correlation to effects on consciousness. Deprive a brain of oxygen for long and the eventually the consciousness produced by that brain can no longer be detected. We actually know that if certain parts of the brain are damaged that it will affect certain conscious functions. For instance, damage to X part of the brain will affect speech functions, damage to Y part of the brain can cause memory loss, etc..

 

[Scott C.]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

I voted "negative" but then remembered why I might actually vote "positive". As a Mormon I believe in the spirit of man and woman which inhabits the flesh. There is a consciousness and a soul that transends the material. In that sense I am not a materialist. But, then I recalled that it was Joseph Smith who taught: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter".

See this link if interested in Mormon thought on matter.

Matter - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

 

[PureX]

Except that we have actual evidence that the converse is true. Damage to the brain can have a direct correlation to effects on consciousness. Deprive a brain of oxygen for long and the eventually the consciousness produced by that brain can no longer be detected. We actually know that if certain parts of the brain are damaged that it will affect certain conscious functions. For instance, damage to X part of the brain will affect speech functions, damage to Y part of the brain can cause memory loss, etc..

This logic simply doesn't play through. Consciousness manifest in the material brain. But the material that makes up the brain manifests as an organized expression of energy. So why would we consider the brain matter the elemental criteria, rather than the energy that generates it?

And secondly, consciousness is not a strictly material phenomena, it's an electro-neural phenomena, which means that it's as much a direct expression of energy as it is of matter. When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases. So it would be more logical to presume that it's that electro-neural activity that generates consciousness, not the brain matter.

Think of it this way, is it the circular rim, the spokes, and the hub that carry the wagon's load? Or is it the empty cylindrical hole in the center of these? Because without that hole, the rest of it is useless.

And without the conceptual possibilities awakened in our minds by the idea of the wheel, even the hole is useless.

 

[Nous]

Except that we have actual evidence that the converse is true. Damage to the brain can have a direct correlation to effects on consciousness.

That's called the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia One can damage a TV set so that it no longer displays a TV broadcast. That doesn't mean that the TV broadcase is caused by the components inside the TV that were damaged. Right?

You need an account as to how electricity among neurons (or whatever you propose) produce conscious experience and the ability to choose between available options.

 

[Nous]

OK, what would *you* consider the philosophical position to be that allows both fermions and bosons as the basic components for the universe? In other words, any quantum particle?

If it isn't materialism, what would you call it?

Let's call it Dumb. It's a "philosophical position" that still doesn't conform to the findings and theories of modern physics. It protends but doesn't explain how it is possible the a non-conserved things such as particles are somehow more "basic" than conserved quantities.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This logic simply doesn't play through. Consciousness manifest in the material brain. But the material that makes up the brain manifests as an organized expression of energy. So why would we consider the brain matter the elemental criteria, rather than the energy that generates it?

And secondly, consciousness is not a strictly material phenomena, it's an electro-neural phenomena, which means that it's as much a direct expression of energy as it is of matter. When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases. So it would be more logical to presume that it's that electro-neural activity that generates consciousness, not the brain matter.

Think of it this way, is it the circular rim, the spokes, and the hub that carry the wagon's load? Or is it the empty cylindrical hole in the center of these? Because without that hole, the rest of it is useless.

And without the conceptual possibilities awakened in our minds by the idea of the wheel, even the hole is useless.

"So why would we consider the brain matter the elemental criteria, rather than the energy that generates it?"


Because EVERY TIME we've encountered the energy that generates consciousness, a physical BRAIN has been involved. Show me an example of the energy that generates consciousness existing WITHOUT a brain. If you can't, it certainly suggests that a physical brain is REQUIRED in order to encounter the energy that generates consciousness.

"So it would be more logical to presume that it's that electro-neural activity that generates consciousness, not the brain matter."

Again, show me an example of this neural activity being generated WITHOUT a physical brain. Since all neural activity ceases when the physical brain dies, it's logical to assume that the neural activity was being PRODUCED BY the physical brain. If you deprive a physical brain of oxygen or introduce certain chemicals to a physical brain you can witness how it affects the production and function of neural activity within the brain. All of this is evidence that the physical brain is required for consciousness. There is NO evidence that consciousness CAN exist without a physical brain.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's call it Dumb. It's a "philosophical position" that still doesn't conform to the findings and theories of modern physics. It protends but doesn't explain how it is possible the a non-conserved things such as particles are somehow more "basic" than conserved quantities.

All energy is conveyed by particles. All momentum is conveyed by particles. All physical properties are either properties of particles are conveyed by particles.

Again, if the position that *everything* is ultimately determined by the quantum states of particles isn't materialism, then what do you call it? Give it a reasonable name so we can discuss it.

 

[Polymath257]

Clever.

But both are expressions of energy.

What is energy? ... We have no idea.
What is governing the way energy can and cannot express itself? ... We have no idea.
What is existence apart from the conceptual opposite of non-existence? What is non-existence apart from the conceptual opposite of existence? ... We have no idea.

No, mind is NOT energy. At least not in the technical sense in which we have conservation of energy in physics. Mind is a process in the brain: there is no conservation law for such processes.

Energy is the fourth coordinate of the energy-momentum 4-vector for particles. We know as much about it as we do any other physical property, like spin, momentum, or mass.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This logic simply doesn't play through. Consciousness manifest in the material brain. But the material that makes up the brain manifests as an organized expression of energy. So why would we consider the brain matter the elemental criteria, rather than the energy that generates it?

And secondly, consciousness is not a strictly material phenomena, it's an electro-neural phenomena, which means that it's as much a direct expression of energy as it is of matter. When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases. So it would be more logical to presume that it's that electro-neural activity that generates consciousness, not the brain matter.

Think of it this way, is it the circular rim, the spokes, and the hub that carry the wagon's load? Or is it the empty cylindrical hole in the center of these? Because without that hole, the rest of it is useless.

And without the conceptual possibilities awakened in our minds by the idea of the wheel, even the hole is useless.

"When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases."

The neural activity ceases because the physical brain that generates the elctro-neural activity is no longer functioning.

 

[Nous]

All energy is conveyed by particles. All momentum is conveyed by particles.

What do you mean by "conveyed"?

What happens to energy in a closed system when particles are destroyed?

Again, if the position that *everything* is ultimately determined by the quantum states of particles isn't materialism, then what do you call it?

Dumb. Using the term "materialism" to describe a metaphysical thesis where matter is not the only or most fundamental phenomenon is a metaphysical thesis that is intentionally deceptive. It will only appeal to people who uphold the term "materialism" as a religion (you, for example).

 

[Polymath257]

"When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases."

The neural activity ceases because the physical brain that generates the elctro-neural activity is no longer functioning.

More specifically the configuration is NOT the same at the chemical level. The reason the brain dies it that it runs out of the molecule that is used as a catalyst for many reactions: ATP. When the ATP is gone, the neurons can no longer fire, the metabolism can no longer function, etc. Now, ATP is produced mainly (but not exclusively) by reactions that require oxygen, so if oxygen is cut off, the production of ATP stops and the brain dies.

Why does 4 minutes of so of oxygen deprivation lead to death? Because the brain has about 4 minutes of ATP reserve at normal use levels.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean by "conveyed"?

Well, energy is the time component of the energy-momentum vector for particles. ALL energy is associated with some particle as that component.

What happens to energy in a closed system when particles are destroyed?

Other particles are created and the energy is associated with them.

Dumb. Using the term "materialism" to describe a metaphysical thesis where matter is not the only or most fundamental phenomenon is a metaphysical thesis that is intentionally deceptive. It will only appeal to people who uphold the term "materialism" as a religion (you, for example).

OK, ok, so you don't want to use the word 'materialism' for it. Give me another name for it. And no, using the name 'dumb' is not acceptable. It is a reasonable thesis backed by the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

No, we really aren't. We're self aware expressions of being. We are the means by which the universe is discovering and experiencing itself. This transcends the "bag-o-meat" ideal by a conceptual lightyear.

OK, so we are self-aware bags of meat. So?

 

[QuestioningMind]

More specifically the configuration is NOT the same at the chemical level. The reason the brain dies it that it runs out of the molecule that is used as a catalyst for many reactions: ATP. When the ATP is gone, the neurons can no longer fire, the metabolism can no longer function, etc. Now, ATP is produced mainly (but not exclusively) by reactions that require oxygen, so if oxygen is cut off, the production of ATP stops and the brain dies.

Why does 4 minutes of so of oxygen deprivation lead to death? Because the brain has about 4 minutes of ATP reserve at normal use levels.

" When the ATP is gone, the neurons can no longer fire,"

And when the neurons can no longer fire, all evidence of consciousness ceases to exist. Which suggests that the brain which uses this ATP to make the neurons fire is REQUIRED for consciousness to continue. Otherwise we would have evidence of consciousnesses existing WITHOUT a functioning physical brain that can cause neurons to fire.

 

[Nous]

Well, energy is the time component of the energy-momentum vector for particles. ALL energy is associated with some particle as that component.

So, by "conveyed" you just mean "associated"?

OK, ok, so you don't want to use the word 'materialism' for it. Give me another name for it.

I bet you would object to "dualism," despite how accurate that might be. You probably would object to "pluralism". And you still haven't explained why anyone would want to adhere to a metaphysical thesis that apparently elevate particles that are not conserved over conserved quantities such as energy.

And even if you could resolve those issues, there remain other problems. For instance, there is simply nothing known about energy or particles that account for conscious experience or the ability of conscious creatures to choose between available options.

There is simply no title for a metaphysical thesis such as you have proposed that suggests some comprehensive account of the nature of reality.

 

[idav]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

IDk idealists and I have irreconcilable differences a lot of times but then I think half the time the arguments are semantical in nature. Idealists have a deep seeded aversion to call anything physical or refer to anything as substance. I myself think that anything and everything can be explained via physical interactions, there may not be anything material about existence but this does not lead me to idealism. Idealism goes beyond the concept of monism straight to Intelligent Design, that may be where I diasagree with its leaps in logic about mind.

 

[atanu]

"Matter is objective reality given to us in sensation" (V. I. Lenin)
Its what I've got but it only is really useful in a philosophical context.

Yes. I knew this. If we can include all scientific observations in the ambit of ‘sensations’, we have here the most comprehensive definition.

Quantum Mechanics having shown the role of observer in collapsing the wave function, however, has made the ‘objective’ part complicated. Quantum mechanics lends value and support to the idea that matter is sensed into existence by consciousness/cognition. Scientists such as Michio Kaku and others acknowledge the role of observer in formation of universe. There are videos available. You may wish to see those on YouTube etc.

‘Cognition first’, if true will allow our scienctific and other intellectual efforts to be worthwhile. OTOH, if our consciousness is created out of unknown inert material then what is the chance that our cognitive power has any objective value? What is the chance that our intellect has competence for evaluation of truth in objective manner? If cognition is just the play of neuronal machinery, then the conclusion of ‘Philosophical materialism’ stands self refuted.

Controlled experiments on yoga practitioners and meditators show that they can wield conscious power over mental conditions and brain states. Yoga and meditation practices are now considered valuable in fields of mental and physical well-being. These practices work on the principles of free will, on the understanding that human consciousness is primary and free.

There many more points in favour of ‘consciousness first’ paradigm for me, the most important being that I can consciously impact positively my own and other people’s happiness.

 

[idav]

Yes. I knew this. If we can include all scientific observations in the ambit of ‘sensations’, we have here the most comprehensive definition.

Quantum Mechanics having shown the role of observer in collapsing the wave function, however, has made the ‘objective’ part complicated. Quantum mechanics lends value and support to the idea that matter is sensed into existence by consciousness/cognition. Scientists such as Michio Kaku and others acknowledge the role of observer in formation of universe. There are videos available. You may wish to see those on YouTube etc.

‘Cognition first’, if true will allow our scienctific and other intellectual efforts to be worthwhile. OTOH, if our consciousness is created out of unknown inert material then what is the chance that our cognitive power has any objective value? What is the chance that our intellect has competence for evaluation of truth in objective manner? If cognition is just the play of neuronal machinery, then the conclusion of ‘Philosophical materialism’ stands self refuted.

Controlled experiments on yoga practitioners and meditators show that they can wield conscious power over mental conditions and brain states. Yoga and meditation practices are now considered valuable in fields of mental and physical well-being. These practices work on the principles of free will, on the understanding that human consciousness is primary and free.

There many more points in favour of ‘consciousness first’ paradigm for me, the most important being that I can consciously impact positively my own and other people’s happiness.

Consciousness first ignores its existing first. Whatever that 'it' is. Free will is still possible if existence and mind happened at the same time instead of one before the other.

 

[atanu]

"When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact. It's the electro-neural activity that ceases."

The neural activity ceases because the physical brain that generates the elctro-neural activity is no longer functioning.

That is the problem. The physical structure of the brain is intact. Why is it not acting anymore? Does it mean there is something more than just the physical that puts the machinery in motion. A switch or something?

Just visualise a dead person. Why the dead person cannot proclaim “I am”, if consciousness is only a property of physical structure of brain?