Things you don't like about Materialism

[Grandliseur]

Agreed. Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics are difficult for materialists because of how they understand matter, space and time and often rely on the belief on an infinite eternal universe.

I don't mind what people believe. Mine tend to give people headaches. 'It did to my wife at least.'

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

"Why is it not acting anymore?"

There are a number of reasons why a physical brain can stop functioning, but generally it comes down to the fact that blood flow is no longer providing sufficient nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells. So if a person has a heart attack, it can cause the heart to stop pumping blood through the system, the brain becomes deprived of oxygen/nutrients and eventually it shuts down, no longer firing the neutrons within the brain that produces consciousness. So yes, in a way if you 'switch' off the system that is providing blood flow to the brain then the brain shuts down and stops generating consciousness. That's why when a physical brain shuts down and stops functioning, there is suddenly no longer any evidence of consciousness.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Material and thought/consciousness are like two ends of a magnet.

Too much indulging in material that you could lose is risky.

 

[siti]

I don't like it...not because I disagree with it but mostly because nobody else seems to understand what it means (or at least what I think it means) - e.g. that a proper definition would include energy as well as matter as the fundamental building blocks of reality (which would have avoided several pointlessly argumentative posts about bosons etc., the physical existence of which no materialist would deny); that although methodologically it has to be reductive to some degree, it does not deny the possibilities of emergence or top-down causation or complexity etc...

For these reasons, I usually prefer the term physicalism but that's really not too much better except that it more explicitly includes energy (and bosons and rainbows etc.)

The consciousness thing is an entirely different problem which has no compelling solution yet.

 

[siti]

Material and thought/consciousness are like two ends of a magnet.

That is about the most sensible comment so far IMO. That's like Whitehead's bipolar "occasions of experience" which have a mental pole and a physical pole. And everything that exists is like that from an atom to a an antelope to the Andromeda galaxy. Every bit of reality both is WHAT it is and what it IS - its reality - the reality of its physical "being" - and its own description all bound together. There is no reason in my mind why that couldn't be a function of a fundamentally material (or physical) reality.

 

[Profound Realization]

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..

That is still not evidence for consciousness being produced by the brain. It is evidence for consciousness no longer able to be processed by the brain.

If information/consciousness are in biophotons or virtual particles for instance, and the brain is the central processing unit, that takes the information that the energy/light/biophotons/virtual particles puts into it and provides it as understandable activity on the physical plane....the information/consciousness would exist in energy/light, not the brain.

Damage the brain, and yes the brain no longer processes what the energy/light puts into it.
Doesn't mean that the energy/light is destroyed. Doesn't mean that information in energy/light is destroyed.
It is possible to transfer the properties of one quantum particle such as a photon to another even if the two are at a far distance. Photons or light particles teleport to another location when their properties are disturbed.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Self awareness has nothing to do with it. We're not fairies, we're organic beings.

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..

Exactly. The mind can be played like a violin. I don't know about afterlives, but during life, your brain = you.

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".

I'm ... kinda on that page. I believe in God and spirit and such, but I'm a materialist. I absolutely see no need to bring fantasy into it.

When a person dies, and consciousness ceases (if it ceases), the matter is still there, and it's configuration is still intact.

No, it's not. Cells start dying and your body starts rotting the second you actually die.

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.

The hole doesn't bear the load either. It's the axle we insert into the holes and the rims and spokes support THAT.

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 now have to show us the broadcasting station. The broadcasting station has material equipment to broadcast physical signals. TV isn't magic either.

Again, show me an example of this neural activity being generated WITHOUT a physical brain.

Even if we make an AI brain, like in Star Trek or something, we may prove it isn't necessary to have human-specific configurations to have a mind, but the AI will STILL need some sort of physical "neural net" to pull it off.

 

[atanu]

"Why is it not acting anymore?"

There are a number of reasons why a physical brain can stop functioning, but generally it comes down to the fact that blood flow is no longer providing sufficient nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells. So if a person has a heart attack, it can cause the heart to stop pumping blood through the system, the brain becomes deprived of oxygen/nutrients and eventually it shuts down, no longer firing the neutrons within the brain that produces consciousness. So yes, in a way if you 'switch' off the system that is providing blood flow to the brain then the brain shuts down and stops generating consciousness. That's why when a physical brain shuts down and stops functioning, there is suddenly no longer any evidence of consciousness.

Thank you for your detailed response.

So, what do we say about origin of life and consciousness? It seems that brain itself does not control the neuronal mechanism and is not able to assert “I will live”. It seems that some unknown process actually makes it work or makes it stop.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness first ignores its existing first. Whatever that 'it' is.

I do not understand this.

Free will is still possible if existence and mind happened at the same time instead of one before the other.

Yes. Existence-Consciousness is one single term. These two cannot be separated.

 

[Looncall]

I do not understand this.



Yes. Existence-Consciousness is one single term. These two cannot be separated.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

 

[idav]

I do not understand this.



Yes. Existence-Consciousness is one single term. These two cannot be separated.

"Consciousness first" to most people means some sort of primordial awareness but not the sort of "I am" awareness. Recognizing ones existence is a whole other step.

 

[Polymath257]

" 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.

Precisely. Consciousness is a physico-chemical process in the brain. ALL evidence supports that conclusion. NONE suggests there is a 'broadcast' of any sort involved.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Sure. In the same way that all other properties, like spin, momentum, angular momentum, etc are 'associated' with particles. Also, when energy moves from one point to another, it does so along with a particle whose energy it is.

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.

Well, dualism usually refers to a belief that mind is a separate 'substance' from matter or that the physical does not supervene on the mental. I'd prefer something like 'physicalism' since all fermions and bosons (and all of their properties) are physical. I also hold that mental processes *are* a type of physical process, specifically a type that happens in brains.

The conserved properties, like energy, momentum, spin, etc are ALL associated with particles and are *never* seen without such. They are all described in terms of the motion and states of particles. If you know the states of all the particles, you know the energy, etc. That seems to make the particles, evenif they are not conserved, more fundamental than their properties.

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.

I disagree. ALL we have observed is based on the physics of particles. Consciousness is a process in the brain. It is eliminated when the brain stops functioning. And there is zero evidence of any sort of 'broadcast' in spite of those who dearly wish there was.

 

[Polymath257]

"Consciousness first" to most people means some sort of primordial awareness but not the sort of "I am" awareness. Recognizing ones existence is a whole other step.

What does that even mean? And how is it different than the simple fact that physical things interact with each other? Does every interaction constitute a 'consciousness'? That, at the very least, seems like a stretch in the definitions.

Chalmers one time suggested that thermometers have a type of consciousness. My position is that if you can say that, you are talking about something *very* different than what I am talking about when I talk about consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

The problem is that consciousness is NOT involved in the 'collapse' of the wave function. ANY interaction with a complex system (usually something macroscopic) is enough to collapse the wave function. This is one of the challenges in our attempts to form quantum computers: the entangled wave functions are so delicate that even light can collapse them and ruin the calculations.

‘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.

Well, our brains evolved in an environment where at least some correspondence with reality was a survival benefit. So, at the level of everyday human interactions, it is reasonably reliable most of the time. Is it absolutely reliable? I doubt *anyone* claims that. And, in case you haven't noticed, once we get away from ordinary human endeavors, our minds *do* have a great deal of difficulty processing information. It takes a great deal of training, for example, to be able to do mathematics. And, from my experience teaching the subject, even very bright students typically make serious logical errors before their training. So, the competence we have is based on observation, training, testing all hypotheses against new observations, etc. We are *often* surprised at what the universe offers. It is a discipline, and not something most people come by naturally.

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.

So we can contraol aspects of our bodies and brains? Wow, that is such a revelation. Why would our brains NOT be able to control our bodies (that is what they evolved to do)? Why would one aspect of the brain NOT be able to influence another aspect? Yes, training and discipline are involved, but nothing supernatural or even metaphysical.

 

[idav]

What does that even mean? And how is it different than the simple fact that physical things interact with each other? Does every interaction constitute a 'consciousness'? That, at the very least, seems like a stretch in the definitions.

Chalmers one time suggested that thermometers have a type of consciousness. My position is that if you can say that, you are talking about something *very* different than what I am talking about when I talk about consciousness.

Yes at least you see the issue with the term 'consciousness first'. "Consciousness" in that case is simply being hijacked.

 

[PureX]

"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.

It's still a draw. Because I can show you lots of brains that are not generating any electo-neural activity. Because they are 'dead matter' without it. So is the whole body. Life, and it's subsequent consciousness is manifesting within matter, but it is not being generated by the matter. It is controlling and animating the matter. And we have no idea what is actually generating it, because life is an energy form that we have not, as yet, "discovered".

"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, ...[/QUOTE]Or the brain return to it's dead-matter state when the electro-neural activity ceases ...

... it's logical to assume that the neural activity was being PRODUCED BY the physical brain.

No, it's really not logical to assume that. It's just a materialist bias masquerading as logic. We do not know how life manifests in matter. And we do not know where the energy that animates a life form goes when the matter returns to it's 'dead state'.

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.

You're still ignoring the point, which is that the brain is dead matter, generating nothing, in and of itself. The brain only exists, and is configured as it is, by the animating and controlling energy we call "life". When that animating energy leaves the brain, it is revealed as 'dead matter', and disintegrates.

 

[PureX]

Even if we make an AI brain, like in Star Trek or something, we may prove it isn't necessary to have human-specific configurations to have a mind, but the AI will STILL need some sort of physical "neural net" to pull it off.

The computer exists to serve the intelligent 'energy' we put into it, not the other way around.

The human brain exists to serve the consciousness that inhabits it, not the other way around. It's the consciousness that is the transcendent factor, relative to the matter. To claim otherwise, is just materialist bias.

If I take a drug that enables me to "see god", have I not seen god?
The drug is just the facilitator, not the validity (or invalidity) of the experience.

 

[atanu]

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).

For you (because it is your thread) and for those who are not constrained by their allegiance to any philosophy.

 

[Laika]

For you (because it is your thread) and for those who are not constrained by their allegiance to any philosophy.

The in-determinism and "free will of the atom" of Quantum Mechanics was the reason why the Soviets hated it as it went directly against a deterministic-materialist worldview and why it was so controversial in Soviet Science.