Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[Bunburryist]

Over the last forty years I’ve found my own way of making sense of the problems in the materialist worldview.  I came to understand that we are not the material beings we learn to believe we are, that this experience we learn to call “the material world” is not the kind of material reality we learn to think it is, and that our experiences of mind, color, sensation, etc. are not the result of processes in material brains.  On my website, OccamsHatchet.com, I’ve posted a series of short talks explaining these ideas in what I believe to be a straight-forward, jargon-free way. 
 
I know, I know – I can hear those up in the skeptics box thinking – “Oh great!  Here we go - another wacko theory website!”  Don’t worry, I’m not into New-Ageism, alien abduction, astrology, the universe as a hologram in a cosmic computer, or multi-verses –you know – crazy stuff like that!  I think you’ll be surprised how straightforward it really is. 
 
Anyway – if it sounds interesting, check it out.  If not, there are over ONE BILLION websites now (I checked), so I think you’ll have at least a couple of alternatives!
 
Now . . . to turn this into an actual thread . . .
 
Is there something “special” about the materialist brain-mind theory (that our experiences of thought, color, sensation, etc. are the result or manifestation of processes in three dimensional electro-chemical entities called “brains”) or can we assume that, like virtually every other scientific theory, will it in the future be replaced by a theory in a different paradigm, relative to which our contemporary “theories” such as functionalism and computationalism will be looked back on as quaint “they really didn’t know any better” ideas; where it will be replaced with an understanding within which a phrase like “I think with my brain” will be compared to a phrase like “the earth goes ‘round the sun.”  I ask this because the total lack of any progress in making any connection between physical describable processes and anything we actually experience – along with other reasons - tells me there is something wrong with the materialist paradigm that scientists generally think in.  (I don’t think I should have to add this disclaimer, but I will to be safe.  I am not saying there is “no relationship” between the brains in our experience and this experience as a whole.  There is clearly a relationship.  My gut feeling is that if and when we do figure out that relationship, it will be a whole lot more interesting that “the brain is a biological computer,” and perhaps will even help to tie together questions such as the “origin” of life, the reality underlying the Big Bang theory, quantum weirdness, etc.)
 
Actually, I think there is something special about the materialist conception of what we, as beings are – it’s what makes it is so devilishly difficult for people to understand the intrinsic problems with that worldview - and it has nothing to do with abstract philosophical jargon, sense theories, or anything else one can argue logically about.  It has to do, rather, with the fact that the materialist conception of us as “living things” in a three dimensional world is the worldview implicit in the way every child learns to think and talk, and the way in which he will continue to think and talk for the rest of his life – even if he becomes a brain scientist.  It isn’t something we are “taught,” but rather is the very context in which our thinking develops.  You think it takes work to show a person the flaws in a religious view they’ve been raised in?  Try showing a person whose very thinking embodies the materialist worldview the flaws in that worldview!
 
My experience has been that virtually no one understands the conceptual in’s and out’s of the so-called materialist “sense theory” (I call it the “sense story”) which is supposed to “explain” how we see, feel, etc.  This misunderstanding – no, this un-understanding - is demonstrated every time a materialist unthinkingly and unintentionally uses phrases like “the world,” “the brain,” or “the universe” – nebulous,  ambiguous phrases that hide rather than illuminate the fundamental problems of the worldview.
 
My guess is that long after scientists have gotten us past the materialist conception of what we are, non-specialists will continue to believe that their minds happen “in their brains,” just as today, in our more enlightened times, they continue to say “the earth goes 'round the sun” and “the sun comes up.”
 

[Neo-Scholastic]

First thing – Is there anything wrong with using the default text settings with which we are all familiar?

Is there something “special” about the materialist brain-mind theory … or can we assume that, like virtually every other scientific theory, will it in the future be replaced by a theory in a different paradigm… Try showing a person whose very thinking embodies the materialist worldview the flaws in that worldview!

It seems that on AF materialism and physicalism are terms of art. As such, debates about whether these theories are outdated or have been overturned quickly get bogged down in arguments over semantics. Recently someone found my use of the term ‘reductionism’ objectionable. I believe the tenacity of materialism/physicalism has very little to do with sound metaphysics or contemporary scientific confirmation; but rather, the lingering influence of post-Enlightenment industrial culture. In Western societies, people habitually rely on the metaphors of machine production and interchangeable parts to make sense of themselves and the world around them. This mechanistic bias informs the thinking of seemingly everyone from accountants to zoologists. Sadly, I find myself less and less interested in debating philosophy on AF. Questioning the philosophical moves of Descartes, Hume and Kant is something unthinkable to anyone who is either unwilling or unable to consider how the larger culture channels their thinking toward the mechanistic assumptions that inform their commitments to materialism/physicalism.

I can already here one objection. What about religion? Theology is not immune to industrial metaphors. It can be found in contemporary creationism and textual criticism, but I think that is beyond the scope of the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there something “special” about the materialist brain-mind theory (that our experiences of thought, color, sensation, etc. are the result or manifestation of processes in three dimensional electro-chemical entities called “brains”) or can we assume that, like virtually every other scientific theory, will it in the future be replaced by a theory in a different paradigm, relative to which our contemporary “theories” such as functionalism and computationalism will be looked back on as quaint “they really didn’t know any better” ideas; where it will be replaced with an understanding within which a phrase like “I think with my brain” will be compared to a phrase like “the earth goes ‘round the sun.” I ask this because the total lack of any progress in making any connection between physical describable processes and anything we actually experience – along with other reasons - tells me there is something wrong with the materialist paradigm that scientists generally think in. (I don’t think I should have to add this disclaimer, but I will to be safe. I am not saying there is “no relationship” between the brains in our experience and this experience as a whole. There is clearly a relationship. My gut feeling is that if and when we do figure out that relationship, it will be a whole lot more interesting that “the brain is a biological computer,” and perhaps will even help to tie together questions such as the “origin” of life, the reality underlying the Big Bang theory, quantum weirdness, etc.)

B-mine, your disclaimer argues against the statement it was invoked to explain.......?  Other stuff having been wrong won't make brain/mind wrong. You can assume whatever you like, ofc.

You've got high hopes.  Basically, you want one thing to explain a bunch of stuff you don't understand simultaneously, so long as it isn't a materialist theory.  Who knows, maybe.  A TOE in the grandest sense.  
 

Actually, I think there is something special about the materialist conception of what we, as beings are – it’s what makes it is so devilishly difficult for people to understand the intrinsic problems with that worldview - and it has nothing to do with abstract philosophical jargon, sense theories, or anything else one can argue logically about.  It has to do, rather, with the fact that the materialist conception of us as “living things” in a three dimensional world is the worldview implicit in the way every child learns to think and talk, and the way in which he will continue to think and talk for the rest of his life – even if he becomes a brain scientist.  It isn’t something we are “taught,” but rather is the very context in which our thinking develops.  You think it takes work to show a person the flaws in a religious view they’ve been raised in?  Try showing a person whose very thinking embodies the materialist worldview the flaws in that worldview!

..............?  
 

My experience has been that virtually no one understands the conceptual in’s and out’s of the so-called materialist “sense theory” (I call it the “sense story”) which is supposed to “explain” how we see, feel, etc.  This misunderstanding – no, this un-understanding - is demonstrated every time a materialist unthinkingly and unintentionally uses phrases like “the world,” “the brain,” or “the universe” – nebulous,  ambiguous phrases that hide rather than illuminate the fundamental problems of the worldview.

.............?
 

My guess is that long after scientists have gotten us past the materialist conception of what we are, non-specialists will continue to believe that their minds happen “in their brains,” just as today, in our more enlightened times, they continue to say “the earth goes 'round the sun” and “the sun comes up.”
 

[/align]
So long as we're guessing about the future anythings possible.  Still wondering why you have a problem with the earth going around the sun, or the sun coming up, lol.

[Tangra]

"We" are certainly not the body because if we were then a dead body should still be us were that the case. This is a very involved question. I believe the most poignant question for a philosopher to examine is consciousness/awareness and its properties. There is a reason we are called homo sapiens sapiens.

---

 
B-mine, your disclaimer argues against the statement it was invoked to explain.......?  Other stuff having been wrong won't make brain/mind wrong. You can assume whatever you like, ofc. 


You've got high hopes.  Basically, you want one thing to explain a bunch of stuff you don't understand simultaneously, so long as it isn't a materialist theory.  Who knows, maybe.  A TOE in the grandest sense.  

[quote pid='1404787' dateline='1475172380']
Therein lies the problem. The established (or even inborn) methods of communication and topics of concern for humans (which for the last however many years our species has existed has been primarily concerned with meeting the first few rungs of Maslow's hierarchy, if lucky) limit the topics of discourse. It's easy to say that there is no answer.
[/quote]

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you expect to turn into someone else when you die, or...what?

[Tangra]

Do you expect to turn into someone else when you die, or...what?

What do you mean turn into someone else?

[The Grand Nudger]

"We" are certainly not the body because if we were then a dead body should still be us were that the case. 

It is still us, unless we turn into someone else when we die? What am I missing?

[Tangra]

I don't know what happens when we die. I don't pretend to either. Do you know what happens when we die?
I was alluding to the fact that you and I are people, not bodies. That a body is not a person and a person is not just a body.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know what happens when we die. I don't pretend to either. Do you know what happens when we die?

Yeah, the cessation of biological function.  If it happened on a thursday, what happens next is friday.  

I was alluding to the fact that you and I are people, not bodies. That a body is not a person and a person is not just a body.

You must mean legally, or something, lol.

[Whateverist]

Are you serious? If you don't pretend to know what happens after we die why do you say:

"We" are certainly not the body because if we were then a dead body should still be us were that the case.

What exactly do you know about what happens to us after we die that permits you to rule out the possibility that we aren't also our body?