Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[Sal]

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.

And? As long as we can agree on that "dog" is a placeholder for what makes up a dog, then there's nothing particularly special about using such designations.

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.

And why stop there? Aren't you a part of the universe? A material thing, no doubt a complex structure - but yet material.

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.

This is like discussing a God of the Gaps. How did you arrive at, as someone else already noted, that ideas exist?

Only thing special about subjectivity is the limited worldview it entails, IMO, since it offers up only to relegate ideas as the stop-gap between the physical ... something whatchamacallit and the mind that perceives whatchamacallit.

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."

Reality is only subjective, insofar in our ability to unravel it. The only real string here is the mind<->senses<->material connection where the mind is the so-called subjective thing experiencing the material.

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.

Just because we're limited in our perception of reality doesn't make it any less real. Yes, we're only experiencing a very limited and provisional part of what's out there through our immediate senses and ability of our brains, doesn't mean we can't grasp a better understanding of reality through the tools of science.

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

Is it now? It's entirely a reference to someones experience with a club and their conclusion thereof. You don't have to like it.

The Large Hadron Collider is just us using very sophisticated "clubs", or as a theoretical physicist friend of mine likes to put it: "hitting shit with shit" and what we can conclude from such experiments.

---

As an addendum: Our brains are just as material as the stuff it experiences. Ideas only exists as the neural connections that make up that structure in our brains. It's so physical indeed, that we can measure them as part-and-parcel of the universe with fMRI, disrupting areas of the brain with electrodes and what other tools neurologists have at their disposal. We just call them "ideas" as placeholders of the material.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

.................................

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.

You would have to claim 100% conviction in the accuracy and contents, of that mind, to support the claims you've been making..however.  I don't doubt for a minute that you have experiences.  This isn't a discussion of whether or not ideas or experiences exist, though, so?

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.

Like I said, either you think that the idea of a table is an idea about a thing, that the universe exists, or you don;t...but that's -not- a problem for materialism, at all.  It;s a problem you have with the availability and access to knowledge...except when you don,t when you declare 100% conviction in this that or the other.  When you tell us that stuff is made of ideas, that ideas are all we have, and that -some- of our (but not your) ideas are insufficient for this, that, or the other.

To a materialist, brown is a particular wavelength of light. They have a test that demonstrates that this is so. They think that their idea of a table is an idea about a thing, they have a test that demonstrates that this is so. But here we are, and here you are, talking like materialism is actually true, no one -made- you reference QM.....so....? You'll need to realize, at some point, that if you think qm is informative, if you point to it's truth as support for your position..you're accepting materialism, not objecting to it. QM is necessarily materialistic. If it weren't...it would just be more non-science, and we know how you feel about that.

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.

You know nothing more than your experience of your experience and yet you don't mind making claims and counter-claims about it's composition. Look, lol, I understand the objection...but you've moved beyond it in offering your own position and even -within your arguments against materialism, so either you allow others to do as you've done or you're just stonewalling. That's not -actually- an objection, just a refusal to engage in the discussion on equal grounds which you, yourself, chose to lay out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Directly to the contention, again, that all we have are ideas.  I have an experience of cold weather.  I feel the cold.  I see the thermostat drop.  I see the ground freeze.  I can quantify the differences between frozen and thawed ground.  My own subjective exprience of things does not seem to be involved in what a sensor array out in a field 500 miles from me is up to, or to another person who experiences and records the same things with the same and different instruments.   It very much seems that the temperature, and not an idea, and certainly not my experience,  is dropping.  The sheer, overwhelming weight of what I accept as evidence that there is indeed something called a temperature, which can drop, which exists apart from me and independent of my experience or even -any- human beings experience of it, is undeniable.

This, to me, is compelling.  I'm satisfied.  You may not be. You're offering the know-nothings objection to everything, including idealism..which, while in itself is a perfectly valid objection to everything, the specific instances and manners in which you support it are nothing other than a refutation of the very objection itself. If you can't accept that the universe exists, then what it's made of..be it material or ideas, is moot point.

[bennyboy]

This is like discussing a God of the Gaps. How did you arrive at, as someone else already noted, that ideas exist?

I don't need to arrive at it. "Idea" is a label for the forms, shapes, etc. that I experience. No discovery is required.

As an addendum: Our brains are just as material as the stuff it experiences. Ideas only exists as the neural connections that make up that structure in our brains. It's so physical indeed, that we can measure them as part-and-parcel of the universe with fMRI, disrupting areas of the brain with electrodes and what other tools neurologists have at their disposal. We just call them "ideas" as placeholders of the material.

You are way ahead of yourself. You are listing a bunch of experiences-- that of looking at fMRI machines, that of maybe designing them, that of listening to a professor tell you things you didn't know about science. Literally 100% of anything you think, feel or know is composed of ideas.

[bennyboy]

Directly to the contention, again, that all we have are ideas.  I have an experience of cold weather.  I feel the cold.  I see the thermostat drop.  I see the ground freeze.  I can quantify the differences between frozen and thawed ground.  My own subjective exprience of things does not seem to be involved in what a sensor array out in a field 500 miles from me is up to, or to another person who experiences and records the same things with the same and different instruments.   It very much seems that the temperature, and not an idea, and certainly not my experience,  is dropping.  The sheer, overwhelming weight of what I accept as evidence that there is indeed something called a temperature, which can drop, which exists apart from me and independent of my experience or even -any- human beings experience of it, is undeniable.

"seem" is the key word in that paragraph. It's already pretty well established that things are not as they seem to us.

This, to me, is compelling.  I'm satisfied.  You may not be.  You're offering the know-nothings objection to everything, including idealism..which, while in itself is a perfectly valid objection to everything, the specific instances and manners in which you support it are nothing other than a refutation of the very objection itself.  If you can't accept that the universe exists, then what it's made of..be it material or ideas, is moot point.

There are useful ideas, many of which involve pragmatic assumptions. The idea of material is useful when you're making a bridge. It's also useful in studying brain chemistry, and altering the nature of experience through the administration of drugs. It's not so useful in establishing the ultimate nature of reality; and it's piss-poor at explaining why there are actual subjective minds, rather than only philosophical zombies.

But as I've said maybe 6 times now, if you are such a champion of the material view, in particular of science, then let's bring in the science of qualia and see where it leads us. It's my belief that any mind scientist worth his salt will address the same philosophical issues that I have, then shrug and say, "but we choose to move on."

[The Grand Nudger]

"seem" is the key word in that paragraph.  It's already pretty well established that things are not as they seem to us.

Hey, doubt our experience all you want, it's certainly not accurate in every instance I'm aware of. More of a problem for you than me, to be honest.

There are useful ideas, many of which involve pragmatic assumptions.  The idea of material is useful when you're making a bridge.  It's also useful in studying brain chemistry, and altering the nature of experience through the administration of drugs.  It's not so useful in establishing the ultimate nature of reality; and it's piss-poor at explaining why there are actual subjective minds, rather than only philosophical zombies.

So you keep insisting, based upon the experience, which is all we have, whose accuracy you doubt.

But as I've said maybe  6 times now, if you are such a champion of the material view, in particular of science, then let's bring in the science of qualia and see where it leads us.  It's my belief that any mind scientist worth his salt will address the same philosophical issues that I have, then shrug and say, "but we choose to move on."

You already know where it leads us, and have decided that it's non-science.  Look, if you find an unanswerable question theres nothing you -can- do but move on...but finding that unanswerable question won;t make any of your other anwers to other questions wrong...and you have yet to identify an unanswerable question in the first place.  Only those things which you feel have not been answered (some of which I've been more than happy to agree with and concede as unanswered questions).  There -is- a difference.  I'm being too generous by far here, because of course you realy only have that one question, huh, that one special instance in which you think that what is bvroadly applicable to everything else...as you so casually recounted to us above - doesn't fit.  No matter what it is you ask me, and no matter how many times or whether or not I give you inscrutably accurate answers to -exactly- what you ask...you will tell me that you are -really- discussing that one thing...by a million different names. You ask me about music, you don;t really want to talk about music. You wanna talk about mind. You ask about a table, but again it;s not actually a table you;re talking about, you wanna talk about mind. On and on this goes. Chad there, he asks the same questions, but he doesn't wanna talk about that shit any more than you do, he's angling for immaterial causes.

The irony in all of this, being the thread title......

[bennyboy]

You already know where it leads us, and have decided that it's non-science.

I've said so for a simple reason. Science is about studying that which can be objectively observed (i.e. all people can observe them), and qualia cannot.

But I'm perfectly open to changing my opinion about this. Go ahead. . . you say science of mind is being done, I say science of correlates of mind is all that can be done. So go ahead and bring in science to prove your point. You keep saying you've "arrived at" a material world view because of the great consistency of objective observations, etc. etc. For someone with that position, you are able to provide shockingly little evidence that actually supports your view.

You ask me about music, you don;t really want to talk about music.  You wanna talk about mind.  You ask about a table, but again it;s not actually a table you;re talking about, you wanna talk about mind.  On and on this goes.  Chad there, he asks the same questions, but he doesn't wanna talk about that shit any more than you do, he's angling for immaterial causes.  

For guys that don't want to "talk about that shit," we've sure made a lot of posts, haven't we?

Given what we know now, I'd like you even to explain what material MEANS. Are you prepared to say that reality is made up of ambiguous mathematical formulae and nothing more, and stick to your guns in calling this a material reality? It seems to me that the idea of matter itself has been stretched to the point where it's no less representational than the "desk" idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've said so for a simple reason.  Science is about studying that which can be objectively observed (i.e. all people can observe them), and qualia cannot.

So you keep insisting.

But I'm perfectly open to changing my opinion about this.  Go ahead. . . you say science of mind is being done, I say science of correlates of mind is all that can be done.  So go ahead and bring in science to prove your point.  You keep saying you've "arrived at" a material world view because of the great consistency of objective observations, etc. etc.  For someone with that position, you are able to provide shockingly little evidence that actually supports your view.

No you're not, lol, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.   There's no point in me presenting evidence, you'll call it non-science....for reasons that only you can fathom..which have escaped all of those researchers.  Even -you- understand why I have confidence in the material explanations for..say, sound....color, and tables.  There;s just that one special thing........ / shrugs. You don't even -dispute- material explanations, you want to claim them for "ideas"..they're subsumed, remember?

For guys that don't want to "talk about that shit," we've sure made a lot of posts, haven't we?

-all circling the same drain, yeah...that's exactly what I just said.  

Given what we know now, I'd like you even to explain what material MEANS.  Are you prepared to say that reality is made up of ambiguous mathematical formulae and nothing more, and stick to your guns in calling this a material reality?  It seems to me that the idea of matter itself has been stretched to the point where it's no less representational than the "desk" idea.

What's the objection again, that materialism is stuck at billiards balls or that it's come to include too much of what we know and have discovered? There's no point in responding, again, to either... until you can decide which it is.

[bennyboy]

No you're not, lol, and I'm not interested in pretending that you are.   There's no point in me presenting evidence, you'll call it non-science....for reasons that only you can fathom..which have escaped all of those researchers.  

You should stop speaking for scientists. I'm pretty sure my objections have NOT "escaped all of those researchers," and that in fact before doing ANY science they will engage in a discussion of how they are choosing to define qualia, and why they are making that choice. Give me a scientific definition of qualia, as per any of the many scientific papers that must undoubtedly be out there, since you say there is such a robust science of mind.

See, I'm not as intellectually lazy as you seem to think I am. I made a sincere effort to fiend a scientific definition of qualia, and could not, at least not in the first couple pages of a Google search. In fact, almost all definitions I found were those by philosophers, one of whom I believe I linked earlier in this thread, and whom I attempted to invite to this forum but who so far has not answered my e-mail.

You need to follow through on some due process of your own. If you think your position is strong, that materialism is more than a philosophical choice, then bring some evidence. Support your position. Find any serious scientist who will even touch the issue of qualia with a 10-foot pole. Then we can move forward.

[The Grand Nudger]

You should stop speaking for scientists.  I'm pretty sure my objections have NOT "escaped all of those researchers," and that in fact before doing ANY science they will engage in a discussion of how they are choosing to define qualia, and why they are making that choice.  Give me a scientific definition of qualia, as per any of the many scientific papers that must undoubtedly be out there, since you say there is such a robust science of mind.

As predicted, you ask about materialism, and then immediately default to mind.  Just to be clear, you don't care whether or not anything, or indeed -everything- else is explained via materialism...it's just this one thing?   You mean non-science papers, because science can't even study qualia, right?  Remind me.  

See, I'm not as intellectually lazy as you seem to think I am.  I made a sincere effort to fiend a scientific definition of qualia, and could not, at least not in the first couple pages of a Google search.  In fact, almost all definitions I found were those by philosophers, one of whom I believe I linked earlier in this thread, and whom I attempted to invite to this forum but who so far has not answered my e-mail.

I've never thought that laziness was your problem, rather the opposite.  

You need to follow through on some due process of your own.  If you think your position is strong, that materialism is more than a philosophical choice, then bring some evidence.  Support your position.  Find any serious scientist who will even touch the issue of qualia with a 10-foot pole.  Then we can move forward.

You mean bring some non-science, and not about materialism, about qualia, then we can move forward? I doubt that fulfilling this criteria as asked will work, since it's already been done..and hasn't moved the chains for you. You think that qualias the special sauce. It's the one and only example, and you've flatly decided that science can;t study it, that anything that purports to study is is just a bunch of assumptions, and that the entire body of materialism is nothing more than a philosophical choice.

Why pretend that you've actually left any room here, that there is even a forward to go -to, that anything you've asked for isn't already denied, thoroughly?