Western Materialism

[F1fan]

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

How can you have consciousness without a brain?

Thats what all the logic suggests. You cannot reduce the certain to the doubtable, the known to what we know through it. Things with contradictory properties cannot be the same thing.

You aren’t using logic. Logic requires factual premises. You are making many assumptions which are contrary to observations.

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.

All processing in living brains.

Physicalism is invalid because: there is no empirical evidence exclusive to Physicalism and it relies on blind faith; minds and brains have mutually exclusive, contradictory properties; minds cannot reasonably or pragmatically be reduced to matter; minds and brains both influence each other in both directions; we have free will, which cannot occur under Physicalism; behavioral modernity cannot be explained by material evolution; emergence cannot explain the mind/brain relationship; immaterial things exist; and because of the unnecessary harm caused by ideas like determinism, Nihilism, Materialism, Consumerism, and rejecting science that doesn't match our beliefs.

More philosophy as a response to what is observed happening. I’m not impressed by the complexity of human thought and how well it confounds itself. I follow evidence to sound conclusions until there’s evidence to the contrary. You offer philosophy not evidence.

 

[F1fan]

When you throw out Philosophy you throw out any respectability imo.

Have a nice day.

I’m asking for evidence to support your claims. Philosophy won’t cut it.

 

[mangalavara]

It may just be a UK thing but most white people here are methodological naturalists, which they seem to believe is some kind of default position, and say things like, 'I DON'T BELEIVE IN GOD BECAUSE I BELEIVE IN SCIENCE' and that seems to be the majority of people I encounter.

As you know, Christianity has been the religious tradition of Westerners for centuries. As a result, the concept of God to Westerners in general is either the Christian one or something similar. When white Westerners reject Christianity, there is not really another concept of God or the divine to believe in. Contemporary Paganism wouldn’t be appealing to most due to the influences of Christianity and the Enlightenment movement on the Western psyche. Additionally, other religions of the world tend to be associated with cultures that are very different from Western ones, and the adherents tend to be non-white. Naturally, white Westerners see the other religions as quite different and not really for them. For these reasons, you won’t meet too many white Westerners who say they believe in Ishvara, Vahiguru, or Allah. So, when the choice is either the deity of Christianity or a naturalistic worldview, the latter seems appropriate or suitable to the white Westerner.

There are probably many things that I’ve said so far that are not accurate or true to reality. So, I apologize in advance if anyone reads something that’s not right. Of all posters, I am the least knowledgeable.

It confuses the mess out of me that so many folks feel that God and Science are incompatible.

Same here. Natural Science is a discipline useful for understanding the ‘how’ of natural phenomena. Philosophy and Theology, on the other hand, are disciplines useful for arriving at conclusions about the nature and existence of the divine. It’s kind of like how History is useful for understanding the past, and that Psychology is useful for understanding the mind. Each discipline has its own spheres and methods. For that reason, we wouldn’t use History in order to understand how clouds are formed. Similarly, we wouldn’t use Psychology in order to understand how poetry is to be written. How then could Natural Science help us arrive at conclusions about the existence of the divine when it is concerned with natural phenomena?

 

[F1fan]

As you know, Christianity has been the religious tradition of Westerners for centuries. As a result, the concept of God to Westerners in general is either the Christian one or something similar. When white Westerners reject Christianity, there is not really another concept of God or the divine to believe in. Contemporary Paganism wouldn’t be appealing to most due to the influences of Christianity and the Enlightenment movement on the Western psyche. Additionally, other religions of the world tend to be associated with cultures that are very different from Western ones, and the adherents tend to be non-white. Naturally, white Westerners see the other religions as quite different and not really for them. For these reasons, you won’t meet too many white Westerners who say they believe in Ishvara, Vahiguru, or Allah. So, when the choice is either the deity of Christianity or a naturalistic worldview, the latter seems appropriate or suitable to the white Westerner.

There are probably many things that I’ve said so far that are not accurate or true to reality. So, I apologize in advance if anyone reads something that’s not right. Of all posters, I am the least knowledgeable.



Same here. Natural Science is a discipline useful for understanding the ‘how’ of natural phenomena. Philosophy and Theology, on the other hand, are disciplines useful for arriving at conclusions about the nature and existence of the divine. It’s kind of like how History is useful for understanding the past, and that Psychology is useful for understanding the mind. Each discipline has its own spheres and methods. For that reason, we wouldn’t use History in order to understand how clouds are formed. Similarly, we wouldn’t use Psychology in order to understand how poetry is to be written. How then could Natural Science help us arrive at conclusions about the existence of the divine when it is concerned with natural phenomena?

Of course philosophy and theology don’t really describe anything definitively, unlike science. As I mentioned they can conclude anything they damn well please and have no constraints on methodology. Science has to follow evidence to conclusions.

 

[Rival]

Of course philosophy and theology don’t really describe anything definitively, unlike science. As I mentioned they can conclude anything they damn well please and have no constraints on methodology. Science has to follow evidence to conclusions.

If it weren't for philosophy you'd have no science. Philosophy gave us logic to begin with. It is behind the scientific method. Surely you know that science was long considered a branch of philosophy? It's rather hubristic to throw out the father of all sciences. Medicine also has a philosophy behind it, as has mathematics. Ethics and morality come from philosophy.

 

[Rival]

I’m asking for evidence to support your claims. Philosophy won’t cut it.

Then you're missing a lot from your intellectual arsenal. Philosophy is mandatory.

But you are illustrating my thread nicely.

GIVE ME HARD SOLID ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR ELSE IT'S NOT TRUEEEEEE.



Prove justice exists using science. I'll wait.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I’m asking for evidence to support your claims. Philosophy won’t cut it.

Like, I'm in agreement that souls/spirits/consciousness not as a process of brain has very little utility nor do I think it's possible to experience something immaterial without detectable material effect that should be measurable, but ruling out philosophy is way too extremely purile even for me.

Every piece about scientific methodology *is* philosophy. There would not be science without philosophies such as methodological naturalism, empiricism, etc.

Accepting that philosophy is essential for science to operate doesn't mean you have to agree with all philosophical positions. But reducing science to non-philosophy is just that. Highly reductionist.

 

[Quintessence]

As a scientist, folks describing science as an endeavor that "describes anything definitively" makes me cringe. Like, really, really cringe.

No. No, no, no, no. That sort of dogmatism - scientism - is anathema to the sciences.

But you can justify it using philosophy.

 

[1137]

How can you have consciousness without a brain?

The question doesn't even make sense because all knowledge of brains depends on consciousness.

You aren’t using logic. Logic requires factual premises. You are making many assumptions which are contrary to observations.

Right like
1. Things with different properties are not the same thing
2. Consciousness and matter have different properties (feel free to test this empirically)
3. Therefore consciousness and matter cannot be the same things.

Likewise
1. We cannot reduce the certain to the doubtable.
2. Consciousness is certain, matter is doubtable.
3. Therefore we cannot reduce consciousness to matter.

And of course
1. We cannot reduce what we know directly to what we know through it.
2. We know consciousness directly and only know matter through it.
3. Therefore we cannot reduce consciousness to matter.

All processing in living brains.

Is there evidence for this or only presupposition?

More philosophy as a response to what is observed happening. I’m not impressed by the complexity of human thought and how well it confounds itself. I follow evidence to sound conclusions until there’s evidence to the contrary. You offer philosophy not evidence.

Then let us see your logic and evidence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As a scientist, folks describing science as an endeavor that "describes anything definitively" makes me cringe. Like, really, really cringe.

No. No, no, no, no. That sort of dogmatism - scientism - is anathema to the sciences.

But you can justify it using philosophy.

If scientists did not acknowledge the utter lack of definitive conclusions then the sciences could never grow or change. Margin for error isn't a bug, it's a feature. Arguably the most essential one.

 

[Quintessence]

If scientists did not acknowledge the utter lack of definitive conclusions then the sciences could never grow or change. Margin for error isn't a bug, it's a feature. Arguably the most essential one.

Exactly - being self-correcting is a major hallmark of the sciences. Nothing is ever definitive, it is always just "this is the conclusion that is most consistent with the presently available evidence that was gathered under the assumptions of substance materialism and philosophical naturalism."

 

[Rival]

Oldie but a goodie,

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Not sure I could make my simple observation any clearer tbh.

 

[Copernicus]

If it weren't for philosophy you'd have no science. Philosophy gave us logic to begin with. It is behind the scientific method. Surely you know that science was long considered a branch of philosophy? It's rather hubristic to throw out the father of all sciences. Medicine also has a philosophy behind it, as has mathematics. Ethics and morality come from philosophy.

I would put it this way. Scientists explain their results in terms of metaphor, so scientists really involve themselves in philosophical interpretations all the time. For example, the Copenhagen and Multiple Worlds interpretation of quantum phenomena are both philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Regarding the difference between concrete and abstract concepts, I would say that there is no strict dividing line between them. Even the most concrete object is somewhat of an abstraction when you dig down into the details of the structure of word meanings.

 

[blü 2]

I have found no exceptions to the observation that the only manner in which the material is known to exist, is as it is experienced in the consciousness of the observer.

By definition, that which you describe as external reality, can only be apprehended internally.

So what? Do you think the world external to you is your personal fantasy, something you're dreaming or devising?

Then try this simple test ─ stop breathing.

Or is it actually the case that you need air and the air has to come from the world external to you?

What about your parents? Did you just imagine them or are there really other people out there?

Your air, food, ancestry, society, shelter, transport, for you that only exists in your head?

Then why do you bother to post on RF?

Anyway, I'll be interested to hear your report on how you've successfully minded over matter and no longer need air.

 

[blü 2]

So you would deny the existence of numbers/pure mathematics etc? Are you a fictionalist?

I freely acknowledge that all the concepts of maths are exactly that, concepts.

Take something as simple as counting. Before you can count, YOU must first decide what to count and second decide the field in which you wish to count your chosen things ─ how many DOGS in THIS PARK?

Without the frame that YOU provide, no sum is possible.

In the same fashion, you never bump into an uninstantiated 2 when you're walking, nor for that matter a real point ( 0D), a real line (1D), or a real plane (2D). Or indeed an instantaneous cube, one with three spatial and zero temporal dimensions.

Platonists like Penrose think that the very pretty world of maths exists independently of humans, has an objective existence of some kind ─ in Plato's case, in a kind of just-behind-the-veil otherworld which somehow communicates with this one.

I don't.

 

[F1fan]

If it weren't for philosophy you'd have no science. Philosophy gave us logic to begin with. It is behind the scientific method. Surely you know that science was long considered a branch of philosophy? It's rather hubristic to throw out the father of all sciences. Medicine also has a philosophy behind it, as has mathematics. Ethics and morality come from philosophy.

That's all fine. You made a claim about abstract concepts existing outside of brains and I asked for examples, and you had none to offer.

 

[F1fan]

The question doesn't even make sense because all knowledge of brains depends on consciousness.

If it doesn't make sense to you perhaps you lack consciousness.

Of course my question is basic and easy to comprehend. It's simple, is there any example of consciousness existing outside of a living brain?

Right like
1. Things with different properties are not the same thing
2. Consciousness and matter have different properties (feel free to test this empirically)
3. Therefore consciousness and matter cannot be the same things.

Who said consciousness is the same as matter?

Consciousness is a phenomenon of matter (brains) doing its thing while alive. Dead brains have no consciousness. Do you dispute any of this?

Likewise
1. We cannot reduce the certain to the doubtable.
2. Consciousness is certain, matter is doubtable.

How is matter doubtable? Do you doubt matter exists?

3. Therefore we cannot reduce consciousness to matter.

This doesn't work given the definitions of consciousness and matter.

And of course
1. We cannot reduce what we know directly to what we know through it.
2. We know consciousness directly and only know matter through it.
3. Therefore we cannot reduce consciousness to matter.

This is vague and looks silly at face value. Feel free to exapand on what you mean.

Is there evidence for this or only presupposition?

What exactly? Why are you guys so vague all the time? Don't be afraid to use words.

Then let us see your logic and evidence.

Your post is incoherent and seems to suggest you are trying to lay word games. Is your true motive trying to suggest consciousness is immaterial, like God, thus consciousness is God, and we humans are matter? Is this why you sid that matter is doubtable, because it represents humans (worthless rags)?

 

[1137]

If it doesn't make sense to you perhaps you lack consciousness.

Of course my question is basic and easy to comprehend. It's simple, is there any example of consciousness existing outside of a living brain?

I'll repeat this makes no sense. We cannot even obtain examples of brains without reliance on consciousness. Without it you will never know anything at all about brains.

Who said consciousness is the same as matter?

Consciousness is a phenomenon of matter (brains) doing its thing while alive. Dead brains have no consciousness. Do you dispute any of this?

Yes I dispute all claims which violate logic and do not have evidence.

How is matter doubtable? Do you doubt matter exists?

See: brain in a vat, philosophical skepticism, simulation theory, etc.

This doesn't work given the definitions of consciousness and matter.

Why?

This is vague and looks silly at face value. Feel free to exapand on what you mean.

So no refutations?

What exactly? Why are you guys so vague all the time? Don't be afraid to use words.

Literally any logic or evidence in favor of Physicalism.

Your post is incoherent and seems to suggest you are trying to lay word games. Is your true motive trying to suggest consciousness is immaterial, like God, thus consciousness is God, and we humans are matter? Is this why you sid that matter is doubtable, because it represents humans (worthless rags)?

Not really, consciousness would still be immaterial if gods do not exist. Now, did you feel like presenting a defense of your position?

 

[F1fan]

I'll repeat this makes no sense.

That's bad luck. I'm curious why you are struggling with a simple question.

We cannot even obtain examples of brains without reliance on consciousness.

How about that. It's not what I asked.

Without it you will never know anything at all about brains.

So are you admitting that brains are conscious? Knowing involves a brain to comprehend.

Yes I dispute all claims which violate logic and do not have evidence.

Yet you don't explain how I violated logic, so you must agree that what I write is correct.

See: brain in a vat, philosophical skepticism, simulation theory, etc.

Why don't you make your own arguments.

Why?

Because consciousness is a property and process of material brains. They aren't the same type of phenomenon.

So no refutations?

How can incoherent nonsense be refuted? Take in the bulk of my posts as refutation for what you believe.

Literally any logic or evidence in favor of Physicalism.

So you have a prejudice against physicalism? Can you present examples of things that aren't physical?

Not really, consciousness would still be immaterial if gods do not exist.

How is consciousness immaterial?

And do gods exist? Is that what you are suggesting? If consciousness is immaterial regardless of gods, why mention gods at all?

Now, did you feel like presenting a defense of your position?

What is there to defend? Consciousness isn't known to exist outside of living brains. You offer no evidence to the contrary. Why assume otherwise?

It's like observing rocks roll down hills. We never see them roll up hill. Do we assume they do roll uphill even if we don't see it? No. Consciousness is only observed in living brains. No one can cite examples of it outside of living brains.