Why materialists are predominantly materialists

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's a subjective experience of what things are like, aka qualia.  That they are not the same should be obvious by asking two questions:

1)  Can you see what my brain's doing?  Answer: Yes, to a degree
2)  Can you see what I'm experiencing?  Answer: No, not at all

This is simply begging the question.  We cannot currently see what it is that you are experiencing.  That doesn't mean we cannot in fact see what you are experiencing.  You're assuming your conclusion that brain function and experience are distinct.  If they are not, then there may come a day when I can "poke the redness in your brain."  And arguing that we cannot poke experience because we currently cannot is an argument from ignorance.

Are you saying that with a sufficiently advanced technology, one person could actually manipulate a second person's brain and as a result experience what the second person feels? If so then you are just supporting your point with wild speculation and issuing promissory notes. Bennyboy isn't making an argument from ignorance. He is simply pointing out that you have no evidence to support your theory.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure why you say "more than."  First, we need a compelling reason to believe in the material world AT ALL.  Then we can start the work of deciding whether there's more than it.

Jump off a tall building.  Your landing will be convincing evidence. 

Not really.  My experience of falling, and my assumed subsequent lack of experience thereafter, tell me nothing about the underlying nature of reality.  There's no reason why you couldn't have unconsciousness or death in the Mind of God, the Matrix, or a brain in a jar.

[Chas]

Jump off a tall building.  Your landing will be convincing evidence. 

Not really.  My experience of falling, and my assumed subsequent lack of experience thereafter, tell me nothing about the underlying nature of reality.  There's no reason why you couldn't have unconsciousness or death in the Mind of God, the Matrix, or a brain in a jar.

And there is no actual reason to believe you can.

[bennyboy]

You're assuming your conclusion that brain function and experience are distinct.  If they are not, then there may come a day when I can "poke the redness in your brain."

I don't know what poking a color would even mean. However, if you did do that, it wouldn't be with a pin-- it would be with a virtual pin, perhaps-- the stimulated simulation of a pin in the imagination.

You cannot equate things which must be interacted with in different ways.

Therefore it doesn't follow that what your brain is doing cannot be experience.

The brain might be experiencing, but the physical mechanism and the experience are still different properties. One is a state of a mass of electrons in neuronal tissue-- the other is the subjective understanding of what it's like to experience things.

Why on earth would I expect to find a unicorn in your head.  I would expect to find the image or representation of a unicorn in your head.

Wait a minute, we weren't talking about whether brain function or state REPRESENTS experiences. We were talking about whether brain function IS experience. These are not the same question.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Avoid the metaphysics, I keep telling myself. I keep telling myself but do I listen, oh no I never bloody learn. Avoid the goddamn metaphysics you idiot.

[Angrboda]

It's a subjective experience of what things are like, aka qualia. That they are not the same should be obvious by asking two questions:

1) Can you see what my brain's doing? Answer: Yes, to a degree
2) Can you see what I'm experiencing? Answer: No, not at all

This is simply begging the question.  We cannot currently see what it is that you are experiencing.  That doesn't mean we cannot in fact see what you are experiencing.  You're assuming your conclusion that brain function and experience are distinct.  If they are not, then there may come a day when I can "poke the redness in your brain."  And arguing that we cannot poke experience because we currently cannot is an argument from ignorance.

Are you saying that with a sufficiently advanced technology, one person could actually manipulate a second person's brain and as a result experience what the second person feels? If so then you are just supporting your point with wild speculation and issuing promissory notes. Bennyboy isn't making an argument from ignorance. He is simply pointing out that you have no evidence to support your theory.

By saying that we cannot see what you're experiencing, benny is making a claim about what is possible. No I don't know for sure that it is possible, but likewise he doesn't know for sure that it isn't possible. Yet here he is making the claim. Arguing that something is impossible because it's currently not possible is a classic argument from ignorance. It has absolutely zip to do with whether or not I have evidence that it is possible. He's making an absolute claim which he cannot support. You are simply wrong on this.

[Angrboda]

You're assuming your conclusion that brain function and experience are distinct.  If they are not, then there may come a day when I can "poke the redness in your brain."

I don't know what poking a color would even mean.  However, if you did do that, it wouldn't be with a pin-- it would be with a virtual pin, perhaps-- the stimulated simulation of a pin in the imagination.

You cannot equate things which must be interacted with in different ways.

This is simply an abuse of Leibniz' law. That they do not appear to be interacting in the same way is no evidence that they are different. This is simply a philosophical maneuver. If experiences like redness do occur in the brain, they are a result of being 'poked' by the right nerve impulses. That I poke something with the impulse from a probe rather than an impulse from a nerve is a difference without a difference. You seem to be making an abstruse argument that things happen in your subjective awareness because of non-physical events. You are simply assuming your conclusion again.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are you saying that with a sufficiently advanced technology, one person could actually manipulate a second person's brain and as a result experience what the second person feels? If so then you are just supporting your point with wild speculation and issuing promissory notes. Bennyboy isn't making an argument from ignorance. He is simply pointing out that you have no evidence to support your theory.

By saying that we cannot see what you're experiencing, benny is making a claim about what is possible.  No I don't know for sure that it is possible, but likewise he doesn't know for sure that it isn't possible.  Yet here he is making the claim.  

Fair enough. People should generally avoid stating that something is impossible, particularly with respect to technology. I think bennyboy's positive claim is similar to saying that the PNC always applies. The notion that a given mental property is identical in all ways to a specific brain state clearly violates the Law of Identity. It's not a matter of someday, maybe finding a way to bridge that divide. A knowing subject has privileged access to experiences not available to any objective observer, not even in principle. A cascade of neural activity may have the same efficient cause, like a poke, as the associated sensation but that does not mean the sensation are the same thing as the neural cascade. It's like saying that the material of a column (stone) is the same as its form (Doric).

[bennyboy]

This is simply an abuse of Leibniz' law.  That they do not appear to be interacting in the same way is no evidence that they are different.  This is simply a philosophical maneuver.  If experiences like redness do occur in the brain, they are a result of being 'poked' by the right nerve impulses.  That I poke something with the impulse from a probe rather than an impulse from a nerve is a difference without a difference.  You seem to be making an abstruse argument that things happen in your subjective awareness because of non-physical events.  You are simply assuming your conclusion again.

I'm not disputing any of this. I'm saying you can poke the mechanism for experience, and this is not the same as poking the experience. The experience is say slow-dancing with Tomb Raider era Angelina Jolie; how does one poke that? Am I going to have a big needle coming into my field of view? Feel a sudden pinch on my butt? How would it even work?

I'm NOT saying that anything other than the brain is responsible for experiences. I'm 100% agnostic on where experiences come from in a deep philosophical sense, BUT in our practical understanding, it seems to be all about the brain. Please understand this-- I'm not even saying you're wrong. . . I'm simply saying you can't equate the framework which allows for the supervenience of a property with the supervened property. They cannot be said to be identical, because they must be treated differently.

[Noprophets]

Being an atheist and NOT a materialist (and so being a REAL outsider!), I have always had an interest in the relationship between atheism and materialism, on the one hand, and between materialism and science on the other.  Where as most atheists (and non-atheists) conflate materialism and science, I see religion and materialism as BOTH being non-scientific worldviews. 

Before I post my website which is composed of a number of talks where I explain my understanding that the materialist worldview is wrong (which I will do when I reach my quota of 30 posts!) I'd like to ask materialists to explain if and why they believe materialism is either necessary to atheism, or at least an important aspect of the view.

I think materialism and atheism and for that matter, religiosity are not mutually inclusive nor exclusive. Materialism has nothing to do with the concept of believing in a god or not- it has more to do with how well one is satisfied with himself living with everyday experiences and not dwelling on acquisition of the next possession to own.   

Believing or not believing in god is not dependent on if one is materialistic. For me, I am looking forward to unloading all the junk Ive bought over a lifetime.