Western Materialism

[Rival]

Have you ever met anyone with a severe coke habit who was happy?

It was a joke based on dopamine making people happy.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, a good reason to yell at hubby for not doing it right.

It exists outside of my brain because other people before me came up with a concept of “two” or “dva” or any other language that represents 2 things. That there are any number of objects in a set doesn’t have any number relevant to it until a human has interest in how many.

Disagree. Human minds are why numbers exist and are used. That two objects are in a set is irrelevant to nature. “Two” is only relevant to we humans. Maths only describes how nature works. The formulas and numbers aren’t bouncing around out there.

Hahahaha. Me? Would I do that?

Hahahaha. Yea, well…

Is how objects act in space via gravity an entity itself? The physical laws are what they are regardless of how we describe them for our own understanding and purposes.


No. It is what it is in nature.

Objects like oranges are not the laws that govern how they exist in nature.

I’ll send you a million dollars. But to me a one dollar bill equals a million because I say so. So enjoy your million.

The sentence "it is what it is in nature" suggests to me that you believe the world out there is ineffable and everything we use to describe this ineffable entity out there are invented constructs and are useful fictions. So oranges, stones, atoms, gravity....all are fictional constructs.
Is that your position?

 

[Yerda]

It was a joke based on dopamine making people happy.

Fair enough. I did catch that, I just wanted to point out that it is not a substance conducive to long term happiness.

Can be a good deal of short term fun...or so I've heard...

 

[exchemist]

...

Sounds like a non-answer.

On the contrary, it is a direct answer.

If you consider it a non-answer, please explain why.

 

[Yerda]

The sentence "it is what it is in nature" suggests to me that you believe the world out there is ineffable and everything we use to describe this ineffable entity out there are invented constructs and are useful fictions. So oranges, stones, atoms, gravity....all are fictional constructs.
Is that your position?

I have to say that isn't far away from how I tend to think of it.

 

[F1fan]

The sentence "it is what it is in nature" suggests to me that you believe the world out there is ineffable and everything we use to describe this ineffable entity out there are invented constructs and are useful fictions.

You interpreted my statement to mean this? No, science understands the universe quite well. It doesn’t understand everything, but it has done exceptionally well so far. There is little room left for magical thinking.

So oranges, stones, atoms, gravity....all are fictional constructs.
Is that your position?

Nope. The words are human constructs for real things. The words are not the thing.

 

[Rival]

Nope. The words are human constructs for real things. The words are not the thing.

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

This debate isn't over.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you really not grasp it?

Science needs a decent, life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons.

It needs it for the same reason we still argue whether it were right to drop the bombs on Japan, or perform medical experiments on dogs. Science alone would tell us nothing about whether performing vivisections on animals is right or wrong. In fact, if it gives us helpful results the logical conclusion seems to be it was the right thing to do. Yet a life-affirming moral philosophy would tell you not to perform vivisection on animals, no matter how useful to scientific understanding it may be. It's the same with modern issues like testing products on animals.

The reason Baha'is believe we need both science and religion is expressed in the following quote.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...” Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

 

[blü 2]

Sure mind and brain states correlate, they're connected. Nobody denies this. If there is scientific support of it it's strange 2 people now won't give any evidence for this position.

How do you define "mind"?

What evidence says that "mind" is distinct from brain?

What evidence says that "mind", being distinct, can communicate with the brain?

And how, exactly?

Right I know what your faith is I want to know why you think it's true.

If the "mind" is independent of the brain, why is the "mind" affected when the brain is affected ─ eg by age, alcohol, drugs, hypoxia, trauma, disease, &c?

How is dementia even possible?

In this very thread, just go up.

Go up to which particular numbered posts, exactly?

 

[Augustus]

Maybe because they come from the incredibly advanced Greek/Roman cultures, at that time. The most perfect and exquisite marriage between philosophical, mathematical thought, with civil and military wisdom. Whose findings and wisdom still reverberate today, and are the main components of western culture.

Those holding up imperial, militaristic, patriarchal, elitist, eugenicist slave societies as an aspirational paradigm:

1. Actual fascists
2. Advocates of humanism, science and reason

 

[1137]

How do you define "mind"?

The "I."

What evidence says that "mind" is distinct from brain?

What evidence says that "mind", being distinct, can communicate with the brain?

And how, exactly?

See above.

If the "mind" is independent of the brain, why is the "mind" affected when the brain is affected ─ eg by alcohol, drugs, hypoxia, trauma, disease, &c?

Because the two are connected? Same reason the brain is affected by the mind eg placebos, CBT, vetos, etc.

Go up to which particular numbered posts, exactly?

#76 and 89

 

[blü 2]

The "I."

You mean the sense of self? Cogito ergo sum?

Why can't that be exactly what it appears to be, the product of the brain?

#76 and 89

This doesn't even make sense, how can you be aware of brains (or anything else) without relying on consciousness?

By consciousness I mean 'awake and aware'. What definition do you use?

There's plenty like the properties of matter vs consciousness (such as spacial vs not, deterministic vs autonomous), two way causality (such as placebos and CBT), free will (such as the ability to veto an order from the brain to body), and so on.

I see nothing there that's in principle not explainable by the brain being a wholly physical organ.

Physicalism is invalid because: there is no empirical evidence exclusive to Physicalism and it relies on blind faith

Heh heh heh heh heh! Such wonderful nonsense!

minds cannot reasonably or pragmatically be reduced to matter;

So in what manner does 'mind' exist, and where, exactly?

we have free will, which cannot occur under Physicalism;

We have free will to the extent that we can sometimes make our decisions independently of any external pressures one way or the other.

But we can't make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making processes, which we got from our parents and shaped with our life experiences, neither of which were ever in anything like our complete control. This topic has been the subject of a lot of research, and still is, but if you want to defend a view of the brain, you'd better bring yourself up to date with what we know, and what we're looking for.

behavioral modernity cannot be explained by material evolution;

And while you're catching up on modern brain research, check out sociology and the behaviors of groups.

emergence cannot explain the mind/brain relationship;

Since it's actually the brain/brain relationship, there's nothing to explain.

immaterial things exist;

Only in imagination or as concepts, and only case by case in individual brains.

and because of the unnecessary harm caused by ideas like determinism, Nihilism, Materialism, Consumerism, and rejecting science that doesn't match our beliefs.

What about the unnecessary harm of woo beliefs? Patriarch Kirill preaching of the virtue of the invasion of Ukraine &c &c?


But back to the chase: what is your meaningful definition of "mind" ─ since "I" is remarkably uninformative, just as you intended, but totally insufficient for this conversation. And where is it?

 

[1137]

You mean the sense of self? Cogito ergo sum?

Why can't that be exactly what it appears to be, the product of the brain?

Again I'm aware of your personal belief on this matter but concerned you seem unable to provide any evidence or argument in support of it.

By consciousness I mean 'awake and aware'. What definition do you use?

How can you know anything about brains without relying on awareness?

I see nothing there that's in principle not explainable by the brain being a wholly physical organ.

Then explain how they are possible under Physicalism.

Heh heh heh heh heh! Such wonderful nonsense!

And yet still no evidence provided.

So in what manner does 'mind' exist, and where, exactly?

In the manner of anything that exists. "Where" only applies to material things.

We have free will to the extent that we can sometimes make our decisions independently of any external pressures one way or the other.

Yes and under the hard determinism of Physicalism there is no free will, QED.

And while you're catching up on modern brain research, check out sociology and the behaviors of groups.

This is the background that led me to reject physicalism. Perhaps if you actually provided evidence or an argument...

Since it's actually the brain/brain relationship, there's nothing to explain.

Evidence please.

Only in imagination or as concepts, and only case by case in individual brains.


What about the unnecessary harm of woo beliefs? Patriarch Kirill preaching of the virtue of the invasion of Ukraine &c &c?


But back to the chase: what is your meaningful definition of "mind" ─ since "I" is remarkably uninformative, just as you intended, but totally insufficient for this conversation.

I've had enough games. Either provide evidence for physicalism in your response or redirect your efforts, I don't entertain fideism.

 

[sayak83]

You interpreted my statement to mean this? No, science understands the universe quite well. It doesn’t understand everything, but it has done exceptionally well so far. There is little room left for magical thinking.

Nope. The words are human constructs for real things. The words are not the thing.

So the word "stone" refers to a real thing stone out there. But the word "sphere" does not refer to a real geometrical shape sphere out there that the stone or an orange has?
Explain the difference.

 

[F1fan]

So the word "stone" refers to a real thing stone out there. But the word "sphere" does not refer to a real geometrical shape sphere out there that the stone or an orange has?
Explain the difference.

Stone refers to an object. Sphere refers to the property of a round object. Sphere isn't an object itself. But some things are round, and we humans created a word for this shape that occurs naturally so we can know what we are talking about. We invented 360 degress. It could have been 120, or 180, or 720. We use Arabic numbers which were introduced to Europe in the 10th century.

 

[blü 2]

Again I'm aware of your personal belief on this matter but concerned you seem unable to provide any evidence or argument in support of it.

Why in your view is a brain necessary at all?

How can you know anything about brains without relying on awareness?

So you attribute some magical quality to awareness? What, exactly?

In the manner of anything that exists. "Where" only applies to material things.

So the "mind" is nowhere? If we're talking about "mind" as a separate entity, we can agree on that.

Yes and under the hard determinism of Physicalism there is no free will, QED.

The brain makes decisions by complex processes that have been studied quite a lot by now.

Why are those processes necessary if this nowhere "mind" you speak of is in charge of decisions?

Either provide evidence for physicalism in your response or redirect your efforts, I don't entertain fideism.

Easy!

The evidence for physicalism is the way you avoid answering particular questions.

The evidence for "physicalism" is that you have a brain ─ the most complex biological assembly we know of ─ which if you also have a "mind" you simply don't need.

The evidence for physicalism is how you haven't explained why the "mind" is affected when the brain is affected.

The evidence for physicalism is your failure to provide any evidence that the "mind" exists except as a term for various brain functions ─ on the contrary, you insist the "mind" is nowhere, has no real existence, is an imaginary thing imagining itself.

As for "fideism", well, belief in a "mind" that is noplace, not found in reality, has no known function, is entirely unevidenced, is clear a matter of faith with you. You want to see fideism in action, all you need is a mirror.

 

[sayak83]

Stone refers to an object. Sphere refers to the property of a round object. Sphere isn't an object itself. But some things are round, and we humans created a word for this shape that occurs naturally so we can know what we are talking about. We invented 360 degress. It could have been 120, or 180, or 720. We use Arabic numbers which were introduced to Europe in the 10th century.

Shapes like the sphere are elements of Mathematical structures. If you accept that the shape is real property that exists, then clearly Mathematical structures, whose elements those shapes are, exist and are real. I fully agree that the symbols we invent, but the mathematics that these symbols represent are real and are not fictions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You mean the sense of self? Cogito ergo sum?

Why can't that be exactly what it appears to be, the product of the brain?



By consciousness I mean 'awake and aware'. What definition do you use?


I see nothing there that's in principle not explainable by the brain being a wholly physical organ.



Heh heh heh heh heh! Such wonderful nonsense!


So in what manner does 'mind' exist, and where, exactly?


We have free will to the extent that we can sometimes make our decisions independently of any external pressures one way or the other.

But we can't make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making processes, which we got from our parents and shaped with our life experiences, neither of which were ever in anything like our complete control. This topic has been the subject of a lot of research, and still is, but if you want to defend a view of the brain, you'd better bring yourself up to date with what we know, and what we're looking for.


And while you're catching up on modern brain research, check out sociology and the behaviors of groups.

Since it's actually the brain/brain relationship, there's nothing to explain.

Only in imagination or as concepts, and only case by case in individual brains.


What about the unnecessary harm of woo beliefs? Patriarch Kirill preaching of the virtue of the invasion of Ukraine &c &c?


But back to the chase: what is your meaningful definition of "mind" ─ since "I" is remarkably uninformative, just as you intended, but totally insufficient for this conversation. And where is it?

The mind is not the brain. They may be inseparable, but that does not mean the one is reducible to the other; nor, it seems, does neuroscience make any such claim. You can easily research this for yourself.

Understanding the difference between the mind and the brain

You can weigh a brain. Can you weigh your mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the contrary, it is a direct answer.

If you consider it a non-answer, please explain why.

I asked a practical question.

What can't a guy like Krauss understand or do by not caring about philosophy / theology that he could do or understand if he would care about.
Your answer doesn't tell me what he could do or understand if he would care about philosophy.

Merely saying he would understand philosophy / theology doesn't clarify anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you really not grasp it?

Science needs a decent, life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons.

I don't see why. Humans make ethical judgement. Science is but a tool to find out how things work.
What humans do with that knowledge is what has ethical implications.

You can use atomic theory to build bombs that take lives or you can use it to develop medical tech that saves lives.

It needs it for the same reason we still argue whether it were right to drop the bombs on Japan, or perform medical experiments on dogs. Science alone would tell us nothing about whether performing vivisections on animals is right or wrong. In fact, if it gives us helpful results the logical conclusion seems to be it was the right thing to do. Yet a life-affirming moral philosophy would tell you not to perform vivisection on animals, no matter how useful to scientific understanding it may be. It's the same with modern issues like testing products on animals.

Sure. But how is that the responsibility of a method of inquiry like science?

Does a hammer need a "life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons" also?
After all, you can use a hammer to build a shelter for the homeless, but you can also use it to smash someone's head in.

I think you confuse the tool with the human that wields it.