Why materialists are predominantly materialists

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an awfully generous exemption you've made for yourself in what will invariably be a stingy relationship with another.  

That you (and jorg, lol) are both conscious is well beyond an assumption, in my opinion. Retreat into the black box of solipsism at will.

[bennyboy]

That's an awfully generous exemption you've made for yourself in what will invariably be a stingy relationship with another.  

That you (and jorg, lol) are both conscious is well beyond an assumption, in my opinion.  Retreat into the black box of solipsism at will.

I'm not a solipsist.  I've taken my pill, whatever color it is, and accept that others are conscious.  However, this is not a rational position, nor one founded on any rational position.  I just grew up thinking of people as thinking agents, and once I realized that wasn't necessarily the case, I thought about it for about 3 seconds, and said: "Meh. . . talking to people is more fun if I think they are thinking about what I'm saying."

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not a solipsist.  I've taken my pill, whatever color it is, and accept that others are conscious.  However, this is not a rational position, nor one founded on any rational position.

You don't think so? 

I just grew up thinking of people as thinking agents, and once I realized that wasn't necessarily the case, I thought about it for about 3 seconds, and said: "Meh. . . talking to people is more fun if I think they are thinking about what I'm saying."

Point conceded.  Your belief that others are conscious is founded upon irrationality. Some of us extend the courtesy of consciousness for less absurd reasons.

[bennyboy]

Point conceded.  Your belief that others are conscious is founded upon irrationality.  Some of us extend the courtesy of consciousness for less absurd reasons.

I don't think that's true. I think you have collected reasons which you feel support your irrational position.

And by the way, by irrational I don't mean "stupid." I mean that the position wasn't arrived at by rational means. You already "knew" people were real thinking agents before you dug up reasons why you should think so.

[LastPoet]

And here I am, trying to figure out the world around me, while others dream what it should be. What a sexual slave philosophy has become.

[bennyboy]

And here I am, trying to figure out the world around me, while others dream what it should be. What a sexual slave philosophy has become.

Only if your name is Sophie.

[The Grand Nudger]

Point conceded.  Your belief that others are conscious is founded upon irrationality.  Some of us extend the courtesy of consciousness for less absurd reasons.

I don't think that's true.  I think you have collected reasons which you feel support your irrational position.

It's strange the things you do and don't feel confident in, I think.  You're not sure about the material world, you're not sure that I exist as a conscious entity...and yet you -do- have some confidence about what I would do or be inclined to favor -as- a conscious entity.  Seems to me like the last of the three would be more difficult to determine than the other two.  That's just me, though.

And by the way, by irrational I don't mean "stupid."  I mean that the position wasn't arrived at by rational means.  You already "knew" people were real thinking agents before you dug up reasons why you should think so.

OFC I did, that's the beauty of not having to discover everything yourself.  Of being a social creature in a persistent society of knowledgeable people.  That doesn't mean that the position is not or cannot be rationally arrived upon or supported.  Didn't stop me from thinking that the aunt jemima bottle was -also- a person...and it didn't prevent. me from having suspicions that -some- people were just cleverly disguised sacks full of hateful corn. I've since become an adult, done some reading.

That would be a ridiculous barrier for rationality...and it has nothing to -do- with reason.....nothing you ever told a kid or could work out through obvious means could then be maintained, later, to be rational. That water is wet...irrational. That there is no boogeyman, irrational. That people are conscious.......irrational. It's a senseless use of the term. Have fun with that.

[Bunburryist]

I hope that you are not making the assumption that ALL materialists are philosophical materialists, and not what (I believe) most of are, methodological materialists.

I, for example, do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all there is. I am willing to accept that the a material realm (have you defined what you mean by the 'non material' yet?) exists, as long as I feel the belief is justified.

As far as science and materialism is concerned, science operates on methodological materialism, not philosophical materialism. All scientists are methodological materialists, but not all are  philosophical materialists. If they are not methodological materialists, they are not, by definition, scientists.

I guess this would be a good time to chime in on my conception of where I "exist" philosophically.  My interest has always been more in what the average person in society learns to believe in, which is what might be called a "common sense" materialism.  "My body is made of something - atoms I'm told - and my mind happens in my head."  If I'm a believer it might be "My body is made of something created by God - atoms I'm told - and although I may say I believe I have a spirit, I most likely believe implicitly that my mind happens in my head."  The various versions of materialism delineated by philosophers really has no relevance to the average person.  Where as the distinctions made by philosophers might be important in their world, it is nowhere near as important to the world as a whole as the common sense philosophy believed in implicitly by "the masses."  (I may add, by the way, that the common sense philosophy we learn to think in is scientifically informed by teachers educated by universities who are run by academics, and so they are at least partially responsible for this state of affairs.)  I don't think I know one atheist personally who would know the difference of various kinds of materialists.  My interest is in what the average person on the street learns to believe he is.  I think we have to remind ourselves that the people populating a forum like this do not in any way represent the intellectual sophistication of the public at large.

[Bunburryist]

Why don't you try and describe to me a non-material something. Anything at all. I'll wait.

Dan Barker makes the excellent point that a soul, spirit, etc., is always defined in terms of what it is not ("non-material", "immaterial", etc.) as opposed to what it "is".  Consciousness and free will (if the latter even truly exists) are mysterious, but saying that there are non-material things responsible for such is kind of a "soul of the gaps".

My problem with the whole phrase "non-materialist" is that it sort of implies that materialism is the given, relative to which anything else is "non" material.  I may casually label myself a "non-materialist," but that is simply a sloppy way of saying I don't believe in a material reality.  It's not that I think, "Okay, this is a material reality, and there's something else, more, that is, well, non-material."  For me, there's no material reality to start with.  I do have many experiences, but none of them are "made of matter," as "aspects of matter," have aspects that are also aspects of matter, exist in a world in which matter exists, etc.

[Arkilogue]

I'll weigh in here and agree with the OP that there's no evidence for material or anything like it.  In fact, given double-slit experiments (quantum eraser) I'd say even a physical monism is on shaky ground, especially when idealism subsumes materialism and physicalism anyway.  "Reality" is almost for sure unknowable; what we DO know is only what we experience, and relationships between the things we experience.

I propose we remove the unknown/unknowable from science altogether, and treat it for what it is-- a system of categorization and interaction with EXPERIENCES, with no need to cling to instinctive but unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality.

I refute it thus!


If you don't get that reference, sit on a chair the tactile experience is proof of a material existence.

But it's not...

#1: You do not feel the chair, your internal nerves feel the deformation of your body and indentation of skin.

#2: Your skin never touches the material of the chair, the electrons shells in the atoms of the two objects magnetically repel each other*.

http://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-ac...-anything/
“You will see that the purely electro-static repulsion between electrons is not the only reason why you hover above your chair. In the normal case, it’s about as strong as the Pauli Exclusion Principle when it comes to pushing things apart. It’s actually a combination of these two effects dominating the actual behavior. By that, I am speaking of the unbelievable idea that electrons know where every other electron is, and they try to avoid each other as much as possible, resulting in an exponential decrease in the force between electrons, even without the electromagnetic repulsion in play.”