Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[robvalue]

I subscribe to methodological naturalism (or materialism I suppose). I find no need to assume the testable world is all there is. But for all practical purposes, anything untestable can be ignored. You don't have any choice, in fact.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Considering weighing in here but the woo dressed up as philosophy is strong in this thread.

There is no reason to think that materialism isn't enough and a myriad of reasons to think that it is.

[Whateverist]

I think the argument from explanatory success and a tendency toward empiricist epistemology have more to do with the prevalence of mind/body physicalism here. The machine metaphor is obviously outdated to any one with a passing familiarity with contemporary cognitive and neuroscience.

Yes, but the basic context of "thing makes mind" is still there.  Sure, it's not exactly "mechanistic," but it's still a matter of explaining experience in terms of something happening in a thing in a material world - as opposed to (and this is the crux of my post) the idea that material world is not a world that exists and in the terms of which experience is explained, but rather is a way we learn to think about this experience we learn to call "the world."  I know that sound rather vague, but it's what I call a "world of difference difference."  They present two fundamentally different realities.

Why does anyone need to worry about "what makes mind"?   It isn't my job to produce my mind.  It is a given.  But so long as we're just shooting the shit, what is your preferred just-so story for how a mind has come to be?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I subscribe to methodological naturalism (or materialism I suppose). I find no need to assume the testable world is all there is. But for all practical purposes, anything untestable can be ignored. You don't have any choice, in fact.

Well that pretty much rules out the arts and humanities.

[bennyboy]

Considering weighing in here but the woo dressed up as philosophy is strong in this thread.

There is no reason to think that materialism isn't enough and a myriad of reasons to think that it is.

Strong belief in that, but little actual proof, methinks.

[brewer]

It's probably a mistake associating "Occam" with this philosophy. I am not finding "fewest assumptions".

[Gemini]

Strong belief in that, but little actual proof, methinks.

Proof of materialism vs. idealism?

[The Grand Nudger]

I subscribe to methodological naturalism (or materialism I suppose). I find no need to assume the testable world is all there is. But for all practical purposes, anything untestable can be ignored. You don't have any choice, in fact.

Well that pretty much rules out the arts and humanities.

....lol.....why?  Art and humanity exist, and are both material......If you want to know whether or not the mona lisa exists, or whether or not james joyce wrote the greatest novel ever written - it's fairly simple to devise a test. This is the kind of claim that leaves me wondering what the opponents of materialism think materialism is. It suggests, to me, that their objections are likely to be a long list of non-sequiturious arguments from consequence and ignorance.

"We don't know this, we can't explain that...this other thing I like -i think- would be affected!"
So what, so what....and so what?

[Arkilogue]

Funny thing is, every single material and non-material thing (laws) of Man's civilization was once just an idea in someone's imagination.

[The Grand Nudger]

I bet you think that means something.

Well, the usual suspects are all here, at least.