Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[Sal]

The materialist worldview is, IMO, the most parsimonious view of reality because exactly it doesn't add any extraneous "things", like the idea that something exists only as an "idea" of the any thing.

Eh?  Are you joking, or serious?

Why do you ask? Materialism, as a notion of reality, doesn't add immaterial  things. It only states the obvious of what we can discover: that it is fundamentally material.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Eh?  Are you joking, or serious?

Why do you ask? Materialism, as a notion of reality, doesn't add immaterial  things. It only states the obvious of what we can discover: that it is fundamentally material.

Materiality is obvious. Material as fundamental is not.

[Sal]

... of what we can discover, yes.

[bennyboy]

Eh?  Are you joking, or serious?

Why do you ask? Materialism, as a notion of reality, doesn't add immaterial  things. It only states the obvious of what we can discover: that it is fundamentally material.

Okay let's try it out.  I open my eyes, see a dog, remember the word "dog," say dog.  So far so good. I have a label for my experience, but haven't asserted anything beyond that label-- I've made no assumptions, even about the dog existing independent of my experience of it.

Next I say-- a dog is a material object, part of a universe which consists of ONLY material objects, and nothing else. I also am a material object, an object which happens to have the capacity for subjective awareness.

Problem-- how do I know?  100%, and let's not dice words here-- absolutely 100% of all I discover or know, is discovered or known through subjective agency.  Subjective agency works in the medium of IDEAS, which means that all you know is a collection of ideas.  You have not, in fact, discovered that there IS a universe, or that it is "fundamentally material."  What you have discovered is that many of your experiences are coherent, and that certain rules apply to them.

To go from a reality in which everything is subjective, and to then posit that all of reality is objective, is adding a HUGE, really a staggeringly huge, additional "notion of reality."

Okay let's look to science, since that is our best work in categorizing and working with our experiences.  Does it tell us that reality is consistent with how we experience it?  Nope.  Since we do not perceive QM particles, but rather forms, colors, etc., our best science is not consistent with the idea that our perceptions are a reliable determiner of what is real anyway.  It turns out that the desk in front of me is 99.9999999999999% empty space, and the .000000000001% of not-space is squirrely, ambiguous, and impossible to discuss except in terms of mathematical ideas.

Short version: "Og hit with club.  Club feel hard.  So universe all hard club-stuff" is a non-sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

Problem-- how do I know?  100%, and let's not dice words here-- absolutely 100% of all I discover or know, is discovered or known through subjective agency.  Subjective agency works in the medium of IDEAS, which means that all you know is a collection of ideas.  You have not, in fact, discovered that there IS a universe, or that it is "fundamentally material."  What you have discovered is that many of your experiences are coherent, and that certain rules apply to them.

An invocation of solipsism, not a criticism of materialism specifically, and completely self defeating with regards to your criticisms -of- materialism.  How do you know that it's medium is "ideas"...what did you use to figure that out...your subjective agency?  What happened to the black box, how do you know that there -is- a medium to begin with? Why would a medium be required? What does medium mean outside of a material context?

To go from a reality in which everything is subjective, and to then posit that all of reality is objective, is adding a HUGE, really a staggeringly huge, additional "notion of reality."

You're arguing against the existence of the universe, not the composition of it's constituent parts.  

Okay let's look to science, since that is our best work in categorizing and working with our experiences.  Does it tell us that reality is consistent with how we experience it?  Nope.  Since we do not perceive QM particles, but rather forms, colors, etc., our best science is not consistent with the idea that our perceptions are a reliable determiner of what is real anyway.  It turns out that the desk in front of me is 99.9999999999999% empty space, and the .000000000001% of not-space is squirrely, ambiguous, and impossible to discuss except in terms of mathematical ideas.

We don't expect to see the relationships in QM, our eyes do not have that ability, and in fact seeing that would violate everything we know about human beings, and their material abilities.  We do see what happens at our scale of interaction.  Where a table is as solid to a being of our size and our composition, and to -our- eyes...as anything.  I;m not sure why this would even surprise you. Our eyes aren't meant to perform QM experiements, they're for keeping us from running into tables....which is an ability that none of us would require if tables were ethereal, non solid non-things.

Short version: "Og hit with club.  Club feel hard.  So universe all hard club-stuff" is a non-sequitur.

More like "everything that's ever hit og in the head has been material", isn't it? I guess you couldn't bullshit your way around that one though, so I understand why you chose your own phrasing.

These statements above are all arguments you've tried before.........seeing them again an again is to watch fundy idealist apologia being peddled, regardless of how often it's dismantled. As apologia goes, it's fucking ridiculous.

[bennyboy]

An invocation of solipsism, not a criticism of materialism specifically, and completely self defeating.  How do you know that it's medium is "ideas"...what did you use to figure that out...your subjective agency? 

"Idea" isn't something you figure out. It's a label for the things I think about. I imagine a red fire truck-- it has form, shape, etc. Both the fire truck and its various properties are ideas.

You're arguing against the existence of the universe, not the composition of it's constituent parts.  

Nope. I'm just arguing against your interpretations of the massive collection of experiences and ideas we call the universe.

We don't expect to see the relationships in QM, our eyes do not have that ability, and in fact seeing that would violate everything we know about human beings, and their material abilities.  We do see what happens at our scale of interaction.  Where a table is as solid to a being of our size and our composition, and to -our- eyes...as anything.  

As you experience it, the table is a representation of the properties of something-- its shape, color, texture and so on. There's a word for that, and it's not "material." It's "idea." We don't know much, but we DO know for sure that there's nothing existent in the universe with those properties, since there's no such thing as, for example, brown matter.

Short version: "Og hit with club.  Club feel hard.  So universe all hard club-stuff" is a non-sequitur.

More like "everything that's ever hit og in the head has been material", isn't it?

No, it's not like that. That begs the question, and unnecessarily so. Og only needs to know that clubs hurt, and that stuff gets crushed when he hits it. He doesn't have to posit anything beyond the experiential facts, like assumptions about an underlying framework.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Okay let's try it out.  I open my eyes, see a dog, remember the word "dog," say dog.  So far so good.  I have a label for my experience, but haven't asserted anything beyond that label-- I've made no assumptions, even about the dog existing independent of my experience of it.

You assume that dogs are numerically distinct as a kind of thing within an apparently seamless reality. It is a tacit assumption that people make unconsciously.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Idea" isn't something you figure out.  It's a label for the things I think about.  I imagine a red fire truck-- it has form, shape, etc.  Both the fire truck and its various properties are ideas.

It's not?  So ideas are whatever it is you think...what does that tell us about their composition though?  How does that tell us that ideas are made of ideas? What is a medium outside of a material framework?  

Nope.  I'm just arguing against your interpretations of the massive collection of experiences and ideas we call the universe.

-right, with an invocation of solipsism that you do not, in turn, apply to your "ideas" whatever they are.

As you experience it, the table is a representation of the properties of something-- its shape, color, texture and so on.  There's a word for that, and it's not "material."  It's "idea."  We don't know much, but we DO know for sure that there's nothing existent in the universe with those properties, since there's no such thing as, for example, brown matter.

There's nothing in the universe with the proporties of a table.  Nothing at all....not even a table?  WTF?  First, deny the universe, then..deny tables?  This, ladies and gentleman, is why materialism is wrong.  

No, it's not like that.  That begs the question, and unnecessarily so.  Og only needs to know that clubs hurt, and that stuff gets crushed when he hits it.  He doesn't have to posit anything beyond the experiential facts, like assumptions about an underlying framework.

Well, he does have to posit something beyond the "experiential facts" (lol, really?..didn;t you just get through telling us, by reference to a table, how non-factual our experiences are?) if he wants to explain why things are crushed.......

Can you think of some example where an immaterial thing crushed something? I just want to know what we're talking about here..where's the actual exception to the material rule in the statemen, not the nod to provisional certainty which is implicit in all rational knowledge claims?

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay let's try it out.  I open my eyes, see a dog, remember the word "dog," say dog.  So far so good.  I have a label for my experience, but haven't asserted anything beyond that label-- I've made no assumptions, even about the dog existing independent of my experience of it.

You assume that dogs are numerically distinct as a kind of thing within an apparently seamless reality. It is a tacit assumption that people make unconsciously.

That our experience provides this compelling picture of numerically distinct things in an apparently seamless reality is an experience which cannot be denied, not an assumption.  That our experiences or senses are referent to some reality, some x, is.  Once someone starts to tell us about what that reality is made of -even if what they think it's made of is ideas-, ofc, they themselves have briskly walked past that objection, anb can no longer apply it as an objection to an opposed viewpoint.

Simple mechanics, right?

As to that contention, that it's made of ideas, or that all we have are ideas. A thermometer seems to be measuring something, seems to be doing something...so unless it's having an idea - unless it's doing ideas, unless it's measuring ideas....idk what we're talking about. That would -have- to be what it was doing, if the universe was made of ideas...but idk whether or not an idealist wants to live in a universe made out of ideas that can be had, done, -and measured- by a thermometer.....chiefly, since some idealists argue for idealism by saying that we can't measure them, and that we have nothing but them.

/shrugs

[bennyboy]

It's not?  So ideas are whatever it is you think...what does that tell us about their composition though?  How does that tell us that ideas are made of ideas?  What is a medium outside of a material framework?  

Eh? What's matter made up of? That's a weird question.

-right, with an invocation of solipsism that you do not, in turn, apply to your "ideas" whatever they are.

Fair enough. It's all degrees of conviction. I have 100% conviction of my own mind and ideas, and of objects as highly consistent experiences.

There's nothing in the universe with the proporties of a table.  Nothing at all....not even a table?  WTF?  First, deny the universe, then..deny tables?  This, ladies and gentleman, is why materialism is wrong.  

That's right. Table is an idea. The brown-ness is an idea. The flatness is an idea. None of the properties of a table are represented in physical reality. That is in fact what I'm saying. Don't believe me? Let's zoom in on my table and see how brown or flat it is. . . Whoops! It turns out those properties are not there, and my perception is of an idea of a table.

Well, he does have to posit something beyond the "experiential facts" (lol, really?..didn;t you just get through telling us, by reference to a table, how non-factual our experiences are?) if he wants to explain why things are crushed.......

Can you think of some example where an immaterial thing crushed something?  I just want to know what we're talking about here..where's the actual exception to the material rule in the statemen, not the nod to provisional certainty which is implicit in all rational knowledge claims?

I'm not asserting that a club is either material OR immaterial. I'm saying that as we experience it, it represents experiences and ideas and not more than experiences and ideas. And we know nothing more than our experience of it.