Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[The Grand Nudger]

That's really not a very good definition of special pleading.  There's nothing wrong with using a system of thought that works given a particular context, and abandoning in contexts for which it doesn't work.  

-and there you have assumed the truth of your special pleading argument.

Given that you can't sensibly claim knowledge of ultimate truth, then you can stick with what is true in the context in which you're trying to operate.

Words and words and words.  You're burying your rationalizations in rationalization.  

As for QM, if by "necessarily materialistic," you mean "exists but has no volume, can be either a particle or a wave, can go back in time and correct its state to match what an observer did," then okay, but that's a pretty strained definition.

Remind me again, is materialism stuck at billiards balls or does it include too much of what we've discovered?  At what point do you think that someone who thinks science works and can be trusted..will start to be bothered by their description of matter changing to suit the evidence available..particularly over the course of centuries......? Are your standards even attainable? Because it seems like it's an issue of damned if you do, damned if you don't...with the only important thing being that materialism is wrong. You can't accept QMs description of matter, and then bitch about materialism as is. That's a self defeating rationalization.

As for fountain of woo-- it seems to me anything you can't hit with your club is woo.

No, just the weird shit you and others believe about qm.  Like, for example..it;s some sort of evidence that materialism is insufficient, despite being a materialists explanation in the first place, or that it suggests idealism...again by giving you a materialists explanation. That, in short..... it rules in magic, or rules out matter.

[bennyboy]

Remind me again, is materialism stuck at billiards balls or does it include too much of what we've discovered?

The moment that material stops meaning "stuff," or the moment that stuff stops meaning "things which can be located precisely in time and space, and which occupy a non-zero volume," then the meaning of matter begins to overlap with the meanings of mind, magic or even spirit. When you stop having good mechanical explanations of how the pieces work, it all starts to sound more like a systematic collection of miracles than a material explanation. If it soothes you to keep pretending that it's all a big machine, then go ahead.

No, just the weird shit you and others believe about qm.  Like, for example..it;s some sort of evidence that materialism is insufficient, despite being a materialists explanation in the first place, or that it suggests idealism...again by giving you a materialists explanation.  That, in short..... it rules in magic, or rules out matter.

Define material. Go ahead, I dare you to precisely define what it even means. My prediction is that you will need to use a catch all: "Material is whatever the stuff I experience is made of." I suspect that if we discovered we were in the Mind of God, you'd say, "That's fine, those ideas you're talking about. . . that's material."

[The Grand Nudger]

The moment that material stops meaning "stuff," or the moment that stuff stops meaning "things which can be located precisely in time and space, and which occupy a non-zero volume," then the meaning of matter begins to overlap with the meanings of mind, magic or even spirit.  When you stop having good mechanical explanations of how the pieces work, it all starts to sound more like a systematic collection of miracles than a material explanation.  If it soothes you to keep pretending that it's all a big machine, then go ahead.

Material stopped meaning "stuff" as you insist upon it a long time ago, long before QM popped up.  Remind me again, what's the criticism?  That materialism is stuck at billiards balls or that it includes too much of what we've discovered?  

Define material.  Go ahead, I dare you to precisely define what it even means.  My prediction is that you will need to use a catch all: "Material is whatever the stuff I experience is made of."  I suspect that if we discovered we were in the Mind of God, you'd say, "That's fine, those ideas you're talking about. . . that's material."

Now you're objecting to linguistics, not materialism.  I doubt that defining material would help you get passed your roadblock here, particularly since materialism is a position regarding the nature of the world, and material a term that only refers to one portion of that position specifically. That you think some words are used to encompass more things than you find convenient for your endless argument isn't a problem with the position or the definition...it's your problem.

On to the next pointless gripe. Why would "the mind of god" in and of itself speak against materialism? That's yet another unspoken and baseless leap of implication. Is the "mind of god" immaterial? Is it somehow incompatible with a materialist framework? How would you know? So yeah, if we discovered the "mind of god" and it were still explicable from the materialists framework...it would get included. Just like everything else has been. If it weren't, it wouldn't be. This is nothing other than a stunted form of "If you were wrong, then you'd be wrong, but wouldn't admit it!" You know where you can shove that shit, at least until such time as you pony up some "mind of god" for us to study. On that day, that will never come, we can have -that- conversation.

[bennyboy]

Now you're objecting to linguistics, not materialism.  I;m sorry that the word matter is not used to refer to what you insist it must refer to.  That's your problem, not a problem for matter or materialism.

You are too slippery. You claimed science supports your world view with regard to qualia, but refused to provide any science supporting your world view with regard to qualia. I said that I felt "material" should refer to something specific, you refuse to define it in specific terms. I contend that the modern definition of material is so strained that it now overlaps with common definitions of words with which it was once considered mutually exclusive-- like "miracle," or "idea," and you start talking about my problems instead of simply demonstrating my point to be false.

Do you even KNOW what you think these terms mean? What is matter to you, or materialism? Give me something as substantive as the world, something I can sink my teeth into.

--edit--
I can provide links of physicists who claim that QM is incompatible with material monism. At least some physicists share my view, and I'm assuming that many probably share yours. Alex, our own resident physicist, seems not too eager to engage in this particular debate, asking as far as I recall, for askers to tell him what they mean when they say "materialism." You think I'm just trying to use word salad in support of woo, but you may be surprised to find that I care enough about the subject actually to have searched around, read forums and debates about it, and so on.

Have you?

[The Grand Nudger]

You are too slippery.  You claimed science supports your world view with regard to qualia, but refused to provide any science supporting your world view with regard to qualia.  

There's no need.  You and I both know that it exists, you object to it.  Further, there's no explanation of anything in science that -isn't- a materialists explanation.  I'm not slippery, your objections and requests are malformed.

I said that I felt "material" should refer to something specific, you refuse to define it in specific terms.  I contend that the modern definition of material is so strained that it now overlaps with common definitions of words with which it was once considered mutually exclusive-- like "miracle," or "idea," and you start talking about my problems instead of simply demonstrating my point to be false.

-it does, but it doesn't mean the same thing in the colloquial sense as it does in the scientific sense.  Nor does the meaning of material in either sense fully encompass the position of materialism.  It's just a tick of language, of what we knew when we named that position.  Things that are immaterial, in the colloquial sense, are -still- things that fall under the header materialism, in the scientific or philosophical sense. That you think that the stuff has to be "material" stuff in the colloquial sense to be compatible with -materialism- in the latter sense is an issue of you not being able to make up your mind whether it;s stuck at billiards balls or includes too much. You have failed, from top to bottom, to address -materialism-. That you think it includes miracles, would..I think, be a surprise to any materialist...and that you think that ideas are somehow different is again just assuming your assertion to be true.

People used to think all sorts of silly shit. I;m not sure why you think, what they think, is relevant. Just because they were ignorants who couldn't possibly imagine (let alone have known) what made an "idea" tick doesn't mean that you and I are, or have to be. I've done worse than demonstrate your position to be false, I've demonstrated your means of objection to be invalid. They are, after all...your problems. If you don;t want to see me opine over fallacy nested in fallacy...then stop doing it?

Do you even KNOW what you think these terms mean?  What is matter to you, or materialism?  Give me something as substantive as the world, something I can sink my teeth into.

Indeed I do.  Matter, is simply the observable stuff.  That's all it actually means.  Materialism is the notion that the world is, therefore..made of the observable stuff and it's interactions. That;s the ground floor. Different type of materialist positions have subtle differences, but this is what they all share. It's not the position, even, that every single thing is material (in the colloquial sense)..because plenty of things included in materialism are not material in that sense (hello gravity, hello electricity)...which is what you consistently insist that they be. Further, the things that you think aren't material in either sense, and additionally do not confirm to the materialist position....are things which you have no reasonable justification for concluding to be such, while all available evidence points to them being as such. See why you've been having trouble, yet?

--edit--
I can provide links of physicists who claim that QM is incompatible with material monism.  At least some physicists share my view, and I'm assuming that many probably share yours.  Alex, our own resident physicist, seems not too eager to engage in this particular debate, asking as far as I recall, for askers to tell him what they mean when they say "materialism."  You think I'm just trying to use word salad in support of woo, but you may be surprised to find that I care enough about the subject actually to have searched around, read forums and debates about it, and so on.

He may be reluctant to weigh in, and there's no compulsion that he do so...but it's probably important to know what the person thinks materialism means, if they're going to argue against it. Look at how long you've been going on about -something- that doesn't actually have anything to do with materialism?  I believe that you care about the subject.  I trust that you searched around.  You obviously found whatever you were looking for, but who doesn't?

Have you?

There;s hardly a need, since every single one of your missteps comes down to logic 101.  Not Physics 101, or even advanced physics ala QM. The most informative thing you did, apparently, was watch some debates...but theres not actually a little ticker in the corner of the screen that tells you when one or the other of the presenters is leveraging poorly formed - but clearly convincing (to you, at least) - arguments. That's assuming you've accurately reproduced whatever arguments were presented by them in -our- interactions. There -are- valid and difficult objections to materialism...most productively so from within the ranks of various stripes of materialists. They bicker like cats and dogs. What you've been presenting, though....isn't any of that.

[bennyboy]

You are too slippery.  You claimed science supports your world view with regard to qualia, but refused to provide any science supporting your world view with regard to qualia.  

There's no need.  You and I both know that it exists, you object to it.  

No I don't. Show me.

-it does, but it doesn't mean the same thing in the colloquial sense as it does in the scientific sense.  Nor does the meaning of material in either sense fully encompass the position of materialism.  It's just a tick of language, of what we knew when we named that position.  Things that are immaterial, in the colloquial sense, are -still- things that fall under the header materialism, in the scientific or philosophical sense.  That you think that the stuff has to be "material" stuff in the colloquial sense to be compatible with -materialism- in the latter sense is an issue of you not being able to make up your mind whether it;s stuck at billiards balls or includes too much.  You have failed, from top to bottom, to address -materialism-.   That you think it includes miracles, would..I think, be a surprise to any materialist...and that you think that ideas are somehow different is again just assuming your assertion to be true.  

That's a lot of words, and nary a definition of "material" to be found anywhere in them.

People used to think all sorts of silly shit.  I;m not sure why you think, what they think, is relevant.  Just because they were ignorants who couldn't possibly imagine (let alone have known) what made an "idea" tick doesn't mean that you and I are, or have to be.  I've done worse than demonstrate your position to be false, I've demonstrated your means of objection to be invalid.  They are, after all...your problems.  If you don;t want to see me opine over fallacy nested in fallacy...then stop doing it?  

You keep saying you've done things you haven't done, at least in my view. Maybe less metacommentary and more actual proof of / support for your position?

Indeed I do.  Matter, is simply the observable stuff.  That's all it actually means.  Materialism is the notion that the world is, therefore..made of the observable stuff and it's interactions.  That;s the ground floor.  Different type of materialist positions have subtle differences, but this is what they all share. It's not the position, even, that every single thing is material (in the colloquial sense)..because plenty of things included in materialism are not material in that sense (hello gravity, hello electricity)...which is what you consistently insist that they be.  Further, the things that you think aren't material in either sense, and additionally do not confirm to the materialist position....are things which you have no reasonable justification for concluding to be such, while all available evidence points to them being as such.  See why you've been having trouble, yet?

"Observable stuff"? What stuff are you talking about, exactly? Whatever we are experiencing, since we are experiencing it, it must be stuff? Is that it? "It seems so, therefore it IS so"?

He may be reluctant to weigh in, and there's no compulsion that he do so...but it's probably important to know what the person thinks materialism means, if they're going to argue against it.  Look at how long you've been going on about -something- that doesn't actually have anything to do with materialism?  I believe that you care about the subject.  I trust that you searched around.  You obviously found whatever you were looking for, but who doesn't?

Nope. My views were established by what I read about QM and philosophy, and not the other way around. Me giving up on materialism was as much a Eureka moment as many people here giving up on atheism-- the more I learned, the more I felt the view was unsupportable.

There;s hardly a need, since every single one of your missteps comes down to logic 101.  Not Physics 101, or even advanced physics ala QM.  The most informative thing you did, apparently, was watch some debates...but theres not actually a little ticker in the corner of the screen that tells you when one or the other of the presenters is leveraging poorly formed - but clearly convincing (to you, at least) - arguments.  That's assuming you've accurately reproduced whatever arguments were presented by them in -our- interactions.  There -are- valid and difficult objections to materialism...most productively so from within the ranks of various stripes of materialists.  They bicker like cats and dogs.  What you've been presenting, though....isn't any of that.

Still a lot of talk about me and my learning process, and not much talk of your view and SUPPORT for it. My assertion is that I don't know what is ultimately real, and I therefore declare as agnostic. Your assertion is that stuff, its properties, and its interactions are all that exist, and you have been surprisingly dodgy about demonstrating that belief to represent truth.

I'll probably keep responding, because I'm dumb that way and I have too much free time. But I can't see how this discussion is going to move forward unless someone is willing to make a positive assertion and attempt to support it. I was super sure that was going to be you, but it seems that's not the case.

You will probably now claim that I'm making a God of the gaps about our discussion because I don't know how it is going to work out, right?

[Bunburryist]

No, just the weird shit you and others believe about qm.  Like, for example..it;s some sort of evidence that materialism is insufficient, despite being a materialists explanation in the first place, or that it suggests idealism...again by giving you a materialists explanation.  That, in short..... it rules in magic, or rules out matter.

The idea that qm is a materialist explanation makes the assumption that reality is a material world, and therefor any legitimate explanation must be, by definition,  in materialist terms.  This is exactly what I started this tread about in the first place - two ways of thinking about materialism in relation to the idea of a material world.  Perhaps there is something I should start out with . . .

I don't know about you, but I don't experience "material world."  (Of course, I've beating this dead horse enough in this thread, so why not once more.  Even within the context of materialist sense story, what I experience is something happening in a brain in a material world, so I can't experience "material world" or "a material world.")  "Material world" is a label, a phrase, we use to talk about what we DO experience - which is colors, sensations, space, thoughts, etc.  So "material world" as a reality is not self-evident and we don't experience it - it is an idea.

Now the question is - what is the relationship between physical science as an descriptive system and the idea of a material world?  I have found two fundamentally different ways to think about it.

1.  There is an objective spatial reality of which "material world" is an accurate description, and physical science is a system we use to describe, create models of, and make predictions in that reality.
2.  "Material world" and the spatial conception we have of such a world is a mistaken, non- and pre-scientific worldview which physical science is explaining away.

What is left of the idea of a material world after science has gotten a hold of it?  Matter, in any "stuff" concept is gone.  Space, in the sense of a "container" that sits there (Newtonian space) is gone, as space, in physical terms, is inseparable from the "matter" aspect of This Experience.  Time, in the Newtonian sense of a rate at which reality "goes" is gone.  There is, physically speaking, nothing left of the idea of a spatial world that sits there, with stuff in it, and that "happens" in some objective time frame.

Yet, because of the Simple Realist worldview implicit in the language we learn to think with, we still learn, as children, to structure our conceptions we use to think about This Experience in terms of our being "things in a world."  This Experience can't be such a world, we can neither experience nor locate such a world, and physical science has theorized away any common sense conception of it.  So why do we need it?  We only "need" it for one reason.  Other than as a useful "handy" worldview to work in (as we do with Newtonian physics), there is only one role which the idea of such a world performs.  And what is that?  It is to have a "material world" in which there are "things called brains" that people want to believe their experiences happen in.  They want to have a concept , something they can visualize and hold in their minds; an idea they can hold up and say, "Here is where my mind and experience happens.  It happens 'right here' in this thing I call my brain."  It allows them to believe that all that happens, all describable aspects of This Experience, are describable in their "material world."  That is the only remaining role for the idea of an objective material world.  It plays no meaningful scientific role.  It is an obsolete paradigm in which some people - most people - try to imagine a physically described reality (along with everything we actually experience) which cannot be conceived or describe in that paradigm.

Just as some people just "can't do" without a God to make sense of this life, so it seems to me that some people just "can't do" without their conception of themselves as being living things in a material world.   They need something they can point to and say, "I know what kind of thing I am.  I am a living thing in a material world.  This (pointing to one's head) is where my experience happens.  This experience I learn to call "the world," along with my experiences I call "mind," are the result of things happening in time and space in this object (brain).  (Golly gee whiz - maybe it's even a biological computer - wouldn't that be cool!)"  After all the times science has shown us that our conceptions of reality are mistaken, why is it so hard to do the same with us, as experiencing beings?  What's so hard about admitting that we don't know what we are; we don't know what kind of reality underlies This Experience we learn to call "the world"; we don't understand the relationship between this aspect of This Experience we learn to call "the brain" and This Experience as a whole?

[The Grand Nudger]

No I don't.  Show me.

Remind me, does the science exist, or do you object to it?

That's a lot of words, and nary a definition of "material" to be found anywhere in them.

Definitions of words are not my problem, nor yours.

You keep saying you've done things you haven't done, at least in my view.  Maybe less metacommentary and more actual proof of / support for your position?

Complaining about metacommentary will not make your objections anything other than what they were.

"Observable stuff"?  What stuff are you talking about, exactly?  Whatever we are experiencing, since we are experiencing it, it must be stuff?  Is that it?  "It seems so, therefore it IS so"?

The observable stuff, just as I said.  You do realize that you could have learned this from the wiki link on materialism, before you launched yourself into this pointless series of objections? Things may not be as they seem.  If we're wrong, then we would be wrong.  

Nope.  My views were established by what I read about QM and philosophy, and not the other way around.  Me giving up on materialism was as much a Eureka moment as many people here giving up on atheism-- the more I learned, the more I felt the view was unsupportable.

Assuming that they were established based upon the many arguments you've presented here, in this thread, and others....then you have a problem.  They are objections which I have discussed with you, at length, time and time again.  That you cannot accept them for what they are is, again, no problem of mine.

Still a lot of talk about me and my learning process, and not much talk of your view and SUPPORT for it.  My assertion is that I don't know what is ultimately real, and I therefore declare as agnostic.  Your assertion is that stuff, its properties, and its interactions are all that exist, and you have been surprisingly dodgy about demonstrating that belief to represent truth.

I was attempting to be generous, assuming that you -had- heard a difficult objection to materialism, but had either lost it in translation, or botched it.  If you don't know what is real, your issue is not with materialism.  It's deeper, lower.  

I'll probably keep responding, because I'm dumb that way and I have too much free time.  But I can't see how this discussion is going to move forward unless someone is willing to make a positive assertion and attempt to support it.  I was super sure that was going to be you, but it seems that's not the case.

You've been outmanouvered for quite awhile, do you think that continuing to position will play in your favor, this time?

You will probably now claim that I'm making a God of the gaps about our discussion because I don't know how it is going to work out, right?

Why would I?  I'm trying to help you properly employ reason, not bullshit you.

[bennyboy]

Rhythm, I was starting to type a response, but I realized there was nothing to respond to.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea that qm is a materialist explanation makes the assumption that reality is a material world, and therefor any legitimate explanation must be, by definition,  in materialist terms.  This is exactly what I started this tread about in the first place - two ways of thinking about materialism in relation to the idea of a material world.  Perhaps there is something I should start out with . . .

It doesn't.  That QM is a materialistic explanation is an effect of the method used to generate it.  Whether or not we live in material world is irrelevant to the nature of QM as an explanation.  We may not, QM may be wrong.

I don't know about you, but I don't experience "material world."  (Of course, I've beating this dead horse enough in this thread, so why not once more.  Even within the context of materialist sense story, what I experience is something happening in a brain in a material world, so I can't experience "material world" or "a material world.")  "Material world" is a label, a phrase, we use to talk about what we DO experience - which is colors, sensations, space, thoughts, etc.  So "material world" as a reality is not self-evident and we don't experience it - it is an idea.

Is there a difference between what happens in a brain, and a "material world"?  Is an idea somehow immaterial?  

Now the question is - what is the relationship between physical science as an descriptive system  and the idea of a material world?  I have found two fundamentally different ways to think about it.

1.  There is an objective spatial reality of which "material world" is an accurate description, and physical science is a system we use to describe, create models of, and make predictions in that reality.
2.  "Material world" and the spatial conception we have of such a world is a mistaken, non- and pre-scientific worldview which physical science is explaining away.

We've definitely been explaining away many misconceptions we had...though materialsim isn't one of them....at least not from science.  Methodological materialism is foundational to it.  There may be some x, currently undiscovered and un-described out there..that finally explains away materialism (whatever that would mean, however we found it..just assuming we did) but science dosn;t describe or address it.  It doesn't even make the assumption that it exists.  

What is left of the idea of a material world after science has gotten a hold of it?  Matter, in any "stuff" concept is gone.  Space, in the sense of a "container" that sits there (Newtonian space) is gone, as space, in physical terms, is inseparable from the "matter" aspect of This Experience.  Time, in the Newtonian sense of a rate at which reality "goes" is gone.  There is, physically speaking, nothing left of the idea of a spatial world that sits there, with stuff in it, and that "happens" in some objective time frame.

That you think matter is gone is more than likely an issue of you not knowing what the term meant.  It's a catch-all.  All of these ideas that you've just described don;t seem to be gone at all.  I have a container in front of me, holding water, and water in a different form.  It will, given time, all be water in one form.  Will further discovery alter that?

Yet, because of the Simple Realist worldview implicit in the language we learn to think with, we still learn, as children, to structure our conceptions we use to think about This Experience in terms of our being "things in a world." 

Because that is both an adequate description of our experience, and of the mountains and mountains of evidence that tells us whether or not our experience is accurate.  It isn't, always, ofc, but in that particular it appears to be.  

This Experience can't be such a world, we can neither experience nor locate such a world, and physical science has theorized away any common sense conception of it.  So why do we need it?  We only "need" it for one reason.  There is only one role which the idea of such a world performs.  And what is that?  It is to have a "material world" in which there are "things called brains" that people want to believe their experiences happen in.  They want to have a concept , something they can visualize and hold in their minds; an idea they can hold up and say, "Here is where my mind and experience happens.  It happens 'right here' in this thing I call my brain."  It allows them to believe that all that happens, all describable aspects of This Experience, are describable in their "material world."  That is the only remaining role for the idea of an objective material world.  It plays no meaningful scientific role.  It is an obsolete paradigm in which some people - most people - try to imagine a physically described reality (along with everything we actually experience) which cannot be conceived or describe in that paradigm.

Another long, "can't be this" objection.  Science has hardly done away with a "common sense" conception..but so what if it did?   It would seem that we have this material world as a concept because it is accurate, and we have the notion that our experiences happen in our brain because all available evidence points to that conclusion, without a single observation to the contrary.  To say that materialism plays no meaningful scientific role is to say that the foundational metrics of what can be called science plays no role.  Science is, fundamentally, methodologically materialist.  

Just as some people just "can't do" without a God to make sense of this life, so it seems to me that some people just "can't do" without their conception of themselves as being living things in a material world.   They need something they can point to and say, "I know what kind of thing I am.  I am a living thing in a material world.  This (pointing to one's head) is where my experience happens.  This experience I learn to call "the world," along with my experiences I call "mind," are the result of things happening in time and space in this object (brain).  (Golly gee whiz - maybe it's even a biological computer - wouldn't that be cool!)"  After all the times science has shown us that our conceptions of reality are mistaken, why is it so hard to do the same with us, as experiencing beings?  What's so hard about admitting that we don't know what we are; we don't know what kind of reality underlies This Experience we learn to call "the world"; we don't understand the relationship between this aspect of This Experience we learn to call "the brain" and This Experience as a whole?

I'm not sure anyone "needs" this concept..you;d have to be more specific...it certainly seems to help us to avoid death, lo..., but it's not like anyone has much of a choice.  We appear to be living beings in a material world.  Not only is this our experience, all available evidence points to this conclusion and there isn't a single dissenting observation.  It's not difficult, at all, to imagine that we could be wrong...it's much more difficult to demonstrate that we are.  The case is compelling and thorough, on that count.  Whether or not one feels confident that we know the reality underlying our experience is a simple issue of where one places ones confidence, and the justification they offer for it.  I'm confident in both the evidence we have, and the method we used to generate it.  It provides me with propositions that I can at least test for soundness...so that a good means of inference isn;t wasted on a bad proposition.......or endless imagining.