Western Materialism

[blü 2]

The problem with your assertion is that the mind transcends the brain in scope and purpose. Yet you are trying to define the mind as subservient to the brain.

Really?

Then why do you need a brain at all?

Let alone the single most complex organ in biology?

Spell it out for me.

 

[blü 2]

The brain is a ‘product’ of the evolution of carbon based life-forms, and carbon is a product of nuclear fusion in stars, so if we follow that line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, your mind is a product of the Big Bang.

This doesn’t seem to support in any way, your assertion that there is a clear distinction between external reality, and the consciousness of the observer of that reality.

Yes, on that train of thought, no Big Bang, no brain. Seems to follow.

This doesn’t seem to support in any way, your assertion that there is a clear distinction between external reality, and the consciousness of the observer of that reality.

I point out that to be real is to be found in objective reality, whereas minds are found only in brains,

No one has told me why anyone needs a brain anyway ─ let alone an organ with the enormous complexity of the human brain ─ since this woo version of the mind that doesn't exist in reality holds all the aces, as I understand the proposition.

What's the answer?

 

[sayak83]

Thank you.

I'm a simple practical guy and this was a clear practical explanation.

I freely admit that I'm one of those people who "hates" philosophers who insist on talking in jargon-ish riddles that seem neither here nore there when one isn't at home in such things.

If you read a typical science paper, that is full of jargon. So too if you see legal documents. Unfortunately specialist practice often create their own inner language that becomes hard for external people to understand. Philosophy is no exception, especially what is called analytic philosophy.
But there are very good books that explain the important concepts of philosophy and how philosophy can be used to think about modern concerns simply and attractively, just as in science many PPL are doing. There are also a set of very nice podcast series that does the same.
Here is one.
‎Philosophy Bites on Apple Podcasts
I do not think you will find them boring and full of useless speculations and jargons.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, on that train of thought, no Big Bang, no brain. Seems to follow.


I point out that to be real is to be found in objective reality, whereas minds are found only in brains,

No one has told me why anyone needs a brain anyway ─ let alone an organ with the enormous complexity of the human brain ─ since this woo version of the mind that doesn't exist in reality holds all the aces, as I understand the proposition.

What's the answer?

I'm not sure there is an answer. Aren't there always more questions than answers, and isn't it more important to ask the right questions than to obtain the 'right' (and by implication, 'only') answers?

But once we acknowledge that reality is elusive, multi-layered, and paradoxical, we "make lighter, the bittersweet flowing of our lives."* Especially if the flow of time itself is an illusion.

*Carlo Rovelli, The Order of Time

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You seem to assume that 'moral philosophy' refers to a single philosophy. I don't know how educated you are on this subject but there are many moral philosophies, your Western one is just one of many. One facet of Western philosophy is that it believes it holds the keys to moral progress (Progressivism) and ties this to scientific 'advancement' (whatever this means) and believes that scientific advancement is in itself a moral good. It believes that we are on a mostly linear path from barbarism to civilisation. This is a product of the Enlightenment, which gave rise to such ideas as 'the Dark Ages' and the horribly backwards Middle Ages and leading forwards to an era of, well, Enlightenment. If at least some of this sounds familiar, congrats, you're a standard Westerner. You have taken in a largely Christian worldview mixed with some Mediaeval and Enlightenment philosophies, overlayed with a 19th. c. view of science = moral good.

I hope that makes sense.

It does. And I'ld dare say that it is objectively morally superior to "alternative" moral philosophies where one for example doesn't see anything wrong with sacrificing human beings to appease the gods or considering innocent civilians legitimate targets in warfare or things like slavery.

To me, morality is very much about well-being vs suffering of sentient beings, where moral actions increase well-being / decrease suffering and immoral actions decrease well-being / increase suffering of said beings. If one doesn't agree with that, then I have no clue with what one means when they talk about "morality".

It was the Victorians who really pushed scientific materialism and you thus exist in a Victorian tradition as do most Westerners.

There's that word again of "scientific materialism". I don't see how this is connected at all.
"scientific materialism" isn't what informs me that well-being is preferable to suffering.
In fact I don't even really understand what it is exactly that you refer to with "scientific materialism".

Science to me is just a tool. A method of inquiry to answer questions about the physical world. And one that very much excels at that.
What one does with that knowledge is another thing alltogether.

None of this is a bad thing, but it is a series of philosophies from various eras which has given rise to both of us (I'm British) and we both cannot but help existing in this sphere. But because we exist in this sphere, and because of our training, we have been led to believe (because of Moral Progress) that things march on and become better, if only we keep up with scientific, medical and political Progress, and that this is somehow inherent in society and human belief.

I don't consider that inherent to society. In fact, I am very much aware that it can all come crumbling down very fast if we let go of certain core values which are, again, thightly connected to well-being vs suffering of sentient beings. Extreme right wingers come to mind.

In my experience these are people that very much share the same ideas about morality as I do. Only difference is that they seem to apply these only to a certain set of people instead of all people.

The problem is that it's not, this is a Godless tradition based on Christian ideas of the coming eschaton where is the ultimate Paradise if only we do and believe the right things (here I suspect is your disagreement, but don't bother else @Augustus will get on to you ).

I do disagree here, but not for the reason you think. Yes, I do believe our current mindset about this is rooted in the ideas of our ancestry. But our ancestry is not limited to merely judeo-christian culture. Roman culture before that informs this as well. I can see seeds of modern humanism as far back as pagan Roman empire.
Christianity didn't invent this out of thin air. They too borrowed from what came before them.

I have no problems at all with taking over good ideas from christian culture while discarding the bad ideas.
That is indeed what societal progress is... each ancestral culture added its own ideas to what already existed while discarding things that they didn't like.
We aren't any different in that respect in my view.

I do not have such a worldview.

Nor do most people on the earth, nor are most people materialists in the sense of physicalism. Most cultures have ancestor worship, for instance, and believe their dead relatives can guide them. This is such a common belief it outweighs or co-exists with Christianity in many cultures. Many also practice some kind of magic/witchcraft and so on, or engage in cannibalism, etc. Alongside this, many cultures don't care for technological progress as much as we do and certainly don't see it as a moral good. Orthodox Jews, for instance, are strongly advised not to own TVs or smartphones. Many Pagans, like me, see technological progress as destructive and more harmful than helpful. Then there are those who want to practice different kinds of medicine, or may be averse to Western 'pill-culture' and so on.

Well, I think that's just bs.
In my view technological progress is neither good nor bad while at the same time essential for progress in general.
Technology by itself has no moral implications. It's the application thereof that has moral implications.

It's the age old "atomic theory can destroy lives and it can save lives". The question is simply what you do with it. And this is true in our highly advanced technological society just like it was in the bronze age. You can use a sword to hunt and feed the hungry, or you can use it to oppress people.

I certainly agree that plenty of tech is applied immorally (and often times not even intentionally).

Nevertheless,...
Imagine that before you were born, you could choose your life. Say you wouldn't be able to know or determine WHO you would be (who your parents are, what religion you'll be brought up in, what your gender is going to be, what your sexual orientation is going to be, your ethnicity, etc). You could end up being ANYONE.
The only thing you get to choose, is a time and place for your birth and you can choose ANY place, any civilization from the dawn of man till today.

Wouldn't you choose a modern western secular democracy?
Don't you think that place would give you the best chance of living your life in freedom, security, health, literacy, prosperity,...?

I wouldn't want to be a jew in nazi germany.
I wouldn't want to be a gay person in iran.
I wouldn't want to be any citizen in North Korea.
etc.

What I'm describing are various non-Western medical, moral, technological and so-on philosophies, and that's without mentioning the cultures which still have slaves (the majority), unequal rights, animal abuse, etc. and see absolutely nothing wrong with these things. They do not believe in Western 'Moral Progress'. To many people, life if suffering and no amount of forward march will change that (Tragic View, pre-Christian). They believe Western society is naïve, stupid, and over-indulgent.

It may seem like your Western view is the best, more humanitarian, but the problem is you're largely yelling into a void, or preaching to the choir. Either other people don't care or they already agree with you.

Is that really true though?
If that's the case, then why are there way more people trying to migrate to these western countries as compared to the other way round?

People try to flee from North Korea to south korea. Not so much in the other direction.

But sure, indoctrination can be powerful.

In short, your idea that humans don't need ethical training is wrong. We all have some, regardless of whether you believe they're ethical or not (as with the cannibalism). You've taken this to such a degree that you believe it is innate in humans to want to stop suffering, be humanistic and insist on equality for everyone, but historically that has not been the case.

I don't think I said "for all".
The thing is that humans suffer very much from tribalism.

Western slave owners back in the day very much realized the immorality of rape and torture of their fellow humans / citizens. The problem was that they didn't see the african man as a fellow human and citizen. Once you expand your idea of "my group" to the whole of humanity, that picture quickly changes.

Then there's also doctrines and worldviews which people literally allow to override their instinctive sense of morality. This is oftenly what religious fundamentalism leads to.

What is even weirder, tho, is that philosophical naturalism, materialism, physicalism, exist on the polar opposite side to these beliefs. This is where Nietzsche was coming from. There is a highly uneasy balance between the two, because if materialism is true then none of your Western Progress is meaningful at all, because we're just fleshsuits in an uncaring universe. This should, if anything, lead to the Tragic View.

Yes. And that alone should be enough to tell you that something doesn't add up when you "accuse" what are essentially humanists of being "materialists" as if that somehow means something about how they view the world.

Sure, I agree, objectively humans are just meatbags. In the cosmic sense. As in: if tomorrow a meteorite completely evaporates the planet, it won't make a shred of difference on the cosmic scale. The universe will be virtually unchanged. We are just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of.... a pixel in the ultra high definition canvas of the cosmos.

But that doesn't stop me at all to value my life and by extension the life of others.

The Second World War basically forced us to evaluate this and we came out believing that what Nazi Germany did was so bad we should never let it happen again, without ever really quite explaining why (because to many it seemed so obvious). So now our whole view is based on a post-WWII consensus of 'not that again'.

Does it really require a complex explanation?
In my mind it seems rather simple:

Well-being = good
Suffering = bad
Unecessary suffering = extra-ordinary bad

The problem is the rest of the world (See: Putin, Xi Jinping, pretty much every Arab leader) disagrees.

Yep. All people who are stuck in primitive tribalistic thinking and / or who's instinctive morality is poisoned by immoral (religious) doctrine, in some more then others.




I think I'm going to leave it at this. This has been an interesting exchange, but I don't see it progressing much further then this.
We clearly have different views on the matter, but this has been very interesting and I thank you for it.

 

[PureX]

Really?

Then why do you need a brain at all?

Let alone the single most complex organ in biology?

Spell it out for me.

I don't need a brain, I need a mind. The brain is just the mechanism. The mind is the essential result. Without that result, they brain is useless.

I don't need an internal combustion engine. It's useless to me. I need an outomobile. The engine is only of value to the degree that it powers the automobile. By itself it does nothing of value and is of no value to me at all.

Your insistence that the brain is the essential component (because it's physical), and the mind is happenstantial is just plain wrong. And it's why philosophical materialism was rejected long ago by actual philosophers. The brain would not even exist but for the cognition that it enables to occur. It is that cognition that is both profound and precedent. Not the physical brain.

 

[1137]

Why in your view is a brain necessary at all?

It's a receiver. But this is like asking why we need opposable thumbs. We don't, we just evolved that way.

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

Define magical.

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

For sure, and then the free will can veto it.

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

There's 2 way causality, the mind isn't always in charge especially for the average person.

Easy!

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

That's not evidence of anything but me not wasting my time.

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.

But dualists expect this too, heck even idealists accept the brain in a sense.

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

Because the two are connected, I already answered this.

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.

You ignored the evidence, and that is fine. I accept your concession.

 

[F1fan]

Shapes like the sphere are elements of Mathematical structures.

Maths that we humans were able to create since the sphere is a consistent property of any given round object, like a basketball. Wheel bearings are ground down to an extremely accurate size, and the ceramic bearings for racing bikes and high load applications are smoother than steel bearings. We humans created all the maths and equipment to make them.

We these mathematical structures used 20,000 years ago? Were the maths found on tablets in a desert somewhere? No, humans used their intellect to figure out volume and how to calculate it in whatever shapes that were encountered.

If you accept that the shape is real property that exists, then clearly Mathematical structures, whose elements those shapes are, exist and are real.

They are real as we humans conceive them. A round rock existed 20,000 years ago, but did the knowledge of it having a mathematical structure exist then? No. That math works doesn't imply it existed before we developed the formulas. Do you acknowledge that humans had to figure out math formulas via their own wits?

I fully agree that the symbols we invent, but the mathematics that these symbols represent are real and are not fictions.

The formulas represent how nature works. I separate how math works as a function of physics from the formulas that humans had to figure out.

 

[F1fan]

The mind is not the brain. They may be inseparable,

A "mind" is a set of functions that brains perform. When the brain dies the mind no longer exists.

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.

No brain, no mind. Do you disagree?

Understanding the difference between the mind and the brain

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

That's like asking if you can weigh an engine why can't you weigh its power output. Because that is the wrong tool to measure.

"Mind" is an abstract label for what brains do. It isn't an object. Your question is flawed and suggests you don;t understand what a mind is.

 

[F1fan]

Science is a branch of applied epistemology. The problem here is that Krauss has actually been taught philosophy (how to apply the scientific method to various epistemic questions) but since he has not been taught it as philosophy, he does not recognize it as philosophy. It is like saying " I don't need H2O as I have water"....

Does how Krauss categorize knowledge affect the knowledge? Is it a liability or advantage either way?

As it is philosophy is a fairly broad and loose category, as we see the word used in this discussion. The category "science" is vastly more well defined than "philosophy" since science has a higher standard for accuracy.

 

[Ostronomos]

Information equates to mind, which equates to reality.

Mind is indeed brain. However, mind can affect reality when non-separation between mind and reality is merged.

 

[F1fan]

Either procreation is the product of sex or there is no point to having sex. ... oh, wait ...

You should have waited before you wrote this irrelevant analogy.

And to having sex with no intention of procreating.

And waited even longer....

The problem with your assertion is that the mind transcends the brain in scope and purpose.

A "mind" is the brain having purpose. The brain is the material where the "mind" exists, so how you are trying to divide the two is absurd. It's all interdependent. No brains, no minds.

Yet you are trying to define the mind as subservient to the brain.

No he isn't. Minds are a product and function of working brains.

It's the fundamental failure of materialism.

Bad conclusion, which is an actual failure on your part. Trying to suggest minds are not a materialistic phenomenon is absurd.

 

[Ostronomos]

You should have waited before you wrote this irrelevant analogy.

And waited even longer....

A "mind" is the brain having purpose. The brain is the material where the "mind" exists, so how you are trying to divide the two is absurd. It's all interdependent. No brains, no minds.

No he isn't. Minds are a product and function of working brains.

Bad conclusion, which is an actual failure on your part. Trying to suggest minds are not a materialistic phenomenon is absurd.

The mind is not material otherwise your solution to Cartesian mind/ matter dualism would be mind-numbingly simplistic.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure there is an answer. Aren't there always more questions than answers,

There are endless questions that can't be answered, and seem to be asked with the intention of further confusing the questioner.

Seeking truth includes the intention of asking questions that actually lead to answers. Questions that have no discernable way to answer are little more than obstacles and distraction. Believers seem to ask these questions not because they seek truth, but because rational inquiry threatens what they want to believe. Confusion is a way to blur understanding so that belief in implausible and non-rational ideas can fester. I say fester because it is why knowledge and understanding is disrupted.

and isn't it more important to ask the right questions than to obtain the 'right' (and by implication, 'only') answers?

It depends what is "important" to the questioner. As I just noted what is more important to believers is their belief, and working to maintain that belief. It's evident that this make be more subconscious and a fear-response than deliberate and thoughtful. Believers have a habit of belief, and to challenge belief also threatens identity, and that is the trap. Look at the hostility towards materialism, it isn't because there is a vialble alternative that critical thinkers are prejudiced against, it's because materialism is a threat to the illusions of religious belief, and by extension, identity.

But once we acknowledge that reality is elusive, multi-layered, and paradoxical,

It isn't that hard. Reality is our lives every living moment. To deny reality is real only suggests that the religious trap is pushing believers into a deeper denial into illusion.

we "make lighter, the bittersweet flowing of our lives."* Especially if the flow of time itself is an illusion.

Yet you are aging, and no portrait of Dorian Gray hangs in your parlor.

 

[F1fan]

The mind is not material

No one has said it is, as we have stated it is not an object like the brain is. The "mind" is an abstract set of brain functions. These are material processes.

otherwise your solution to Cartesian mind/ matter dualism would be mind-numbingly simplistic.

You have your own serious problems with coherency, so cast no stones in your glass house.

 

[RestlessSoul]

A "mind" is a set of functions that brains perform. When the brain dies the mind no longer exists.

No brain, no mind. Do you disagree?

That's like asking if you can weigh an engine why can't you weigh its power output. Because that is the wrong tool to measure.

"Mind" is an abstract label for what brains do. It isn't an object. Your question is flawed and suggests you don;t understand what a mind is.

I don't think anyone here is denying the direct correlation between brain and mind, or between electro-chemical activity in the former, and cognitive activity in the latter.

However, if consciousness is entirely reducible to physical processes, how is it that thoughts can change the physical structure of the brain? Neuroplasticity How Brain Neurons Change Over Time From Life Experience is a well documented phenomenon, underpinning therapeutic practices in which the mind is trained to rewire neural pathways. This feedback loop between brain and mind would not be possible if the mind were merely an abstract label for something the brain does.

 

[PureX]

A "mind" is a set of functions that brains perform. When the brain dies the mind no longer exists.

We don't actually know that for certain. And your believing it doesn't make it so.

"Mind" is an abstract label for what brains do. It isn't an object. Your question is flawed and suggests you don;t understand what a mind is.

It's what minds do that matters, not the object that enables them to do it. Similarly, it's not the mechanisms of the automobile that makes it matter. It's the transportation that it provides. The mechanisms wouldn't even exist if it were not for the transportation it provides.

Likewise, the brain would not even exist if it weren't for the cognitive value it provides. You say, "but the brain comes first!", yet it actually does not. The value of cognition comes first, and the brain developed in response to it.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think anyone here is denying the direct correlation between brain and mind, or between electro-chemical activity in the former, and cognitive activity in the latter.

We see a few folks claiming minds are immaterial (which means what?) or are separate from brains, even if not directly stated, it is implied. This is a common claim by believers. They seem to want to separate thoughts, mind, feelings, etc. as immaterial which suggests their God could also exist as immaterial.

However, if consciousness is entirely reducible to physical processes,

Is there evidence it isn't? Observations are that consciousness only occurs in living brains. Zero data to the contrary.

how is it that thoughts can change the physical structure of the brain? neuroplasticity is a well documented phenomenon, underpinning therapeutic practices in which the mind is trained to rewire neural pathways.

Why wouldn't they? Thoughts are part of the broader category of the mind, and the mind is the brain working. This includes the nervous system, which includes the indocrine system, hormones. Fear is a brain response and the thoughts running through the brain will include injecting hormones into the blood, which raises blood pressure and breathing. Also doing puzzles, debating, problem solving, etc. will keep brains active and will help avoid neural pruning, which is neural pathways (like country roads getting grown over with weeds and trees if not used) all through the brain dwindling.

 

[F1fan]

We don't actually know that for certain. And your believing it doesn't make it so.

Yes we do. Why do you not want to acknowledge this? What alternative explanation based on FACTS (the thing you hate) suggests minds are not a product of living brains.

It's what minds do that matters, not the object that enables them to do it. Similarly, it's not the mechanisms of the automobile that makes it matter. It's the transportation that it provides. The mechanisms wouldn't even exist if it were not for the transportation it provides.

This is irrelevant, your own bias at work. Your bias is against the material world and invested in your illusory "spirit" world. If you get brain cancer you will suddenly find the brian VERY important. Or get a head injury. Your mind won't have much to do if you are in a coma.

Likewise, the brain would not even exist if it weren't for the cognitive value it provides.

If you mean if brains weren't helpful to organisms that have them they wouldn't be able to survive? Sure. All those people who were beheaded during the French Revolution accomplished very little afterwards. Lazy, headless bums.

You say, "but the brain comes first!", yet it actually does not. The value of cognition comes first, and the brain developed in response to it.

LOL. That's funny.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We see a few folks claiming minds are immaterial (which means what?) or are separate from brains, even if not directly stated, it is implied. This is a common claim by believers. They seem to want to separate thoughts, mind, feelings, etc. as immaterial which suggests their God could also exist as immaterial.

Is there evidence it isn't? Observations are that consciousness only occurs in living brains. Zero data to the contrary.

Why wouldn't they? Thoughts are part of the broader category of the mind, and the mind is the brain working. This includes the nervous system, which includes the indocrine system, hormones. Fear is a brain response and the thoughts running through the brain will include injecting hormones into the blood, which raises blood pressure and breathing. Also doing puzzles, debating, problem solving, etc. will keep brains active and will help avoid neural pruning, which is neural pathways (like country roads getting grown over with weeds and trees if not used) all through the brain dwindling.

Well of course the mind is immaterial. It may be the output of material processes, but the experience of consciousness is not something you can weigh, photograph, or calibrate in any way. Your metaphor about the engine and it’s function fails, precisely because every output of the engine can be measured with precision. This is not so, with the qualitative experience of consciousness.

Consciousness is quite literally the entirety of our experience as living functioning human beings. It takes a huge conscious effort, surely, to relegate awareness to the state of an abstraction arising from objective reality, when that same objective reality is something you can only possibly apprehend by virtue of your consciousness.