Regariding the evidence for materialism

[Fred]

First, care to enlighten me to which elephant is in my room?

Second, you misunderstand me. logic itself is incapable of responding to stimuli. It is a static 'law', and not a thing.

A static law is not a thing? Got it. Ok, no I don't. It's a noun, so unless you can make the case for person or place, I'm afraid thing is all we got left.

Of course a 'thought' exists in the same way logic does, which is to say, it does not exist outside of our definition for a concept. Logic is simply how we sum up the myriad of things which happen because of causation.

So no, logic does not exist 'as a thing'. Neither does a thought, or an ethereal mind. They are definitions, just as logic is, applied to a concept which works ONLY because of purely physical interactions and processes.

I can see where the lack of evidence for logic can come into play, sure, but still, isn't it interesting that you have been using something (allegedly, at least) you say doesn't exist in order to try and prove that it doesn't exist. Maybe that's that circular logic I've heard so much about. And I know that exists.

[theVOID]

It's not so much ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality" as it is ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality for which we have good reason to believe exists".

Being materialists, I'd have to say you would have the inside rail on the belief that it is the only reality. I'm not really all that interested in what you believe here, as one flying teapot works as well as another, I suppose.

Sure it's a belief, but it's also tentative.

The teapot analogy is inapplicable, Russell's teapot deals with things that are neither demonstrable nor falisfiable, the existence of the 'material' is demonstrable and the claim that "nature is all we have good reason to believe exists" is entirely falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified to the best of my knowledge.

It very much is the theory that physical matter is all that exists. Ya painted yourselves into that box, so might as well own the damn thing, since you have such faith in it. Myself, I find it an extraordinary claim. Yet, all I got is questions about my proof. I don't have to prove anything. You folks made the claim, so where's the fucking evidence?

That is necessarily false. Unless you want to argue that materialism/naturalism is incompatible with agnosticism my being an agnostic atheist/naturalist means that while I do not believe that a god or any other immaterial objects/entities exist I have no certainty behind that position, thus if it were to be the case that materialism is the positive position that "physical matter is all that exists" I would necessarily be a Gnostic atheist, gods and other immaterial entities would not be possible given your definition of materialism.

So, my agnosticism regarding Atheism/Naturalism/Materialism demonstrates that none of those position are necessarily gnostic and the suffix "all we have good reason to believe" is perfectly valid.

Yes, you should hope and pray because I'm pretty sure space and time got shaken up pretty badly in some kind of equation or something to do with a light beam or some such. I know I heard that somewhere. And matter as we know it, I'm sure I heard that was not at all the case, either. But I'm not a physicist, so I muddle as best I can to keep up with this stuff.

And 'some such you heard somewhere' is weak. I am certain that matter, energy and dimensions exist, they have been irrefutable demonstrated as real phenomenon that exist, Whether or not time is another dimension (B-Theory of time) or simply an illusion of our ability to remember previous states of affairs (A-Theory of time) is entirely besides the point/

Uh, no. The dispute is whether matter is the only really real thing in the universe. It's a binary. There isn't any wiggle room. It either is, or it isn't. Materialists believe that it is. Fine. Where's the evidence?

Like I explained, given my agnosticism my position ends with the knowledge that I don't know. I have been presented with no evidence or compelling argument for the existence of non-physical entities or objects and thus I refrain from further judgement. They may well exist, they may not, the answers to these questions are simply beyond the scope of my current knowledge.

I already showed that your assertions of materialism being necessarily gnostic are false, so if you see any other problems with tentative materialism feel free to raise them.

[Fred]

Is consciousness physical?

Yes. it is the interaction of nerves and chemicals in the brain.

Explaining the mechanics of how it is facilitated is not the same as explaining what it is.

Are the laws of the universe physical?Are concepts physical?

No. these things are usefull for describing the world, but are not in themselves physical, they are abstract and exist only in the, (admitedly material) mind.

The laws of the universe exist only in my brain? Wow. That's an awesome responsibility. Does this mean gravity didn't follow them till we showed up? Who knew?

So these laws are not physical? To hear it told, that means they don't exist or aren't real. Yet the universe is governed by them nonetheless? is this an example of that magical thinking I hear so much about?

[theVOID]

Is consciousness physical?

Yes. it is the interaction of nerves and chemicals in the brain.

Explaining the mechanics of how it is facilitated is not the same as explaining what it is.

Then it simply need be restated; It is the awareness of (some of) one's functions, facilitated through the interaction of nerves and chemicals in the brain.

That is of-course very simply put.

The laws of the universe exist only in my brain? Wow. That's an awesome responsibility. Does this mean gravity didn't follow them till we showed up? Who knew?

Physical laws are simply facts about reality than can be expressed in concise mathematical formulae.

So these laws are not physical? To hear it told, that means they don't exist or aren't real. Yet the universe is governed by them nonetheless? is this an example of that magical thinking I hear so much about?

Wait, are you, a panentheist, saying that if something is not physical it doesn't exist or isn't real?

Another question; Would you say that god is a specific system comprised of energy?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Heh. I'm not saying what evidence is not. I'm asking for evidence. I hear that is a pretty important feature is some circles, yet it seems hard to come by around here, given how everyone here keeps asking me for it.

Ah, now I get it.

My position: I discarded dualism over 20 years ago as a valid world view,due to lack of credible evidence. I'm perfectly happy with my position. I don't know you,so really don't care if you accept a materialist position or not.

If you have a viable explanation, I'm all ears. If not,bored now, nothing more to say.

[ElDinero]

Who cares about my evidence? I'm not making the claim. The materialists take it as gospel, oh they sure as fuck do, yet there's no evidence forthcoming, just calls to prove otherwise. Not. My. Job.

Materialism is just faith statements. Again, there's nothing wrong with that per se, but there's a lot wrong with not being able to see this because of the choir book obscuring your view.

And even in responding to this charge, it will just be endless iterations of "is not, where's your evidence?" It's the only song sung.

Is this a joke? I will try and break this down for you.

You said you had not seen compelling evidence that death was 'the end'. But I don't understand this at all. We know that when people die, their hearts stop beating and their brains stop functioning, which are basically the two required features of life. When that has happened, they are no longer capable of movement, communication or exhibiting any of the traits that once made them 'alive'.

So, that is the evidence that death is the end, the fact that all our bodily functions cease activity. How is that not compelling evidence?

There has never, ever been any credible evidence to suggest that any further consciousness or life exists outside of this. Surely only evidence of something else existing could lead you to doubt the statement that 'dead is dead'?

The only other option I can conceive of is that you are saying we literally have no idea as a species what happens at death so there's no point speculating on what happens. Which would be a really stupid thing to say.

[Fred]

It's not so much ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality" as it is ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality for which we have good reason to believe exists".

Being materialists, I'd have to say you would have the inside rail on the belief that it is the only reality. I'm not really all that interested in what you believe here, as one flying teapot works as well as another, I suppose.

Sure it's a belief, but it's also tentative.

Good to hear. That's the most honest answer I've seen so far. To be clear, my "you" in all this should be understood as the collective unless otherwise noted. You may be an agnostic personally, but there's a raft of comments that are soaking in a certainty that is not at all backed up by anything more than repetition.

The teapot analogy is inapplicable, Russell's teapot deals with things that are neither demonstrable nor falisfiable, the existence of the 'material' is demonstrable and the claim that "nature is all we have good reason to believe exists" is entirely falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified to the best of my knowledge.

It was a quip, not an analogy. As to the falsifiability of the claim, it's problematic. I know the materialistic argument has been hammered from myriad directions but nobody seems much worried about that. Instead, it's instant dismissal. But, hey, here's just one paper slogging through the shortcomings. I posted it in another thread, but it's good to spread it around. http://bit.ly/oZS6vc If that doesn't seem adequate, here's more than you or anyone could ever wade through dealing with the subject of consciousness: http://bit.ly/Byecw

Bottom line is that the notion that materialism is on firm ground seems to be a fantasy shared only by those who hold it. And much as they delight in ripping other fantastical thinkers, it seems to really piss off many materialists when any challenge beyond bible verse hurling comes their way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Feel free to hurl the vedas, but try not to disappear when you get a response.

[theVOID]

Sure it's a belief, but it's also tentative.

Good to hear. That's the most honest answer I've seen so far. To be clear, my "you" in all this should be understood as the collective unless otherwise noted. You may be an agnostic personally, but there's a raft of comments that are soaking in a certainty that is not at all backed up by anything more than repetition.

If pressed I assume most people who appeared gnostic about materialism would turn out to be agnostic and it would rather be a case of them not being careful with their terms. Gnostic materialism is an entirely unsubstantiated position in my view so in that regard we would agree.

The teapot analogy is inapplicable, Russell's teapot deals with things that are neither demonstrable nor falisfiable, the existence of the 'material' is demonstrable and the claim that "nature is all we have good reason to believe exists" is entirely falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified to the best of my knowledge.

It was a quip, not an analogy. As to the falsifiability of the claim, it's problematic. I know the materialistic argument has been hammered from myriad directions but nobody seems much worried about that. Instead, it's instant dismissal. But, hey, here's just one paper slogging through the shortcomings. I posted it in another thread, but it's good to spread it around. http://bit.ly/oZS6vc If that doesn't seem adequate, here's more than you or anyone could ever wade through dealing with the subject of consciousness: http://bit.ly/Byecw

They're both longer than the amount of time I have to read them at the moment, I'll bookmark them for later but would you be willing to summarise the arguments in the mean time?

Bottom line is that the notion that materialism is on firm ground seems to be a fantasy shared only by those who hold it. And much as they delight in ripping other fantastical thinkers, it seems to really piss off many materialists when any challenge beyond bible verse hurling comes their way.

As long as the arguments against materialism aren't in the form of "materialism can't account for x therefore ¬materialism" then I tend to agree, however, as far as materialism not being on firm ground is concerned I would disagree - given the wealth of empirical demonstrations we have about (a significant number of the phenomena of) mind being contingent upon the brain due to various experiments where manipulation of the brain (either via experiment, chemicals or trauma) alters mental experience, including the experience of self, I would say there are very good reasons to believe that the mind is entirely the product of the brain, or more succinctly perhaps we have no good reason to believe any mental phenomena cannot be accounted for by some yet-undetermined material function.

In that sense the claim that there are aspects of mind that aren't products of the brain is one that would need to be demonstrated and until such time as that is done the case for materialism is on substantially more firm ground than the case for ¬materialism.

[Fred]

Sure it's a belief, but it's also tentative.

Good to hear. That's the most honest answer I've seen so far. To be clear, my "you" in all this should be understood as the collective unless otherwise noted. You may be an agnostic personally, but there's a raft of comments that are soaking in a certainty that is not at all backed up by anything more than repetition.

If pressed I assume most people who appeared gnostic about materialism would turn out to be agnostic and it would rather be a case of them not being careful with their terms. Gnostic materialism is an entirely unsubstantiated position in my view so in that regard we would agree.

Cool. That's no small agreement, so let's celebrate with a virtual beer here. <clink>

Btw, I've been reading about stuff on these topics for a long time but I've never seen this gnostic bit anywhere else but here. What's that about? Has "hard" and "strong" been replaced or is this an idiosyncracy only practiced here?

The teapot analogy is inapplicable, Russell's teapot deals with things that are neither demonstrable nor falisfiable, the existence of the 'material' is demonstrable and the claim that "nature is all we have good reason to believe exists" is entirely falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified to the best of my knowledge.

It was a quip, not an analogy. As to the falsifiability of the claim, it's problematic. I know the materialistic argument has been hammered from myriad directions but nobody seems much worried about that. Instead, it's instant dismissal. But, hey, here's just one paper slogging through the shortcomings. I posted it in another thread, but it's good to spread it around. http://bit.ly/oZS6vc If that doesn't seem adequate, here's more than you or anyone could ever wade through dealing with the subject of consciousness: http://bit.ly/Byecw

They're both longer than the amount of time I have to read them at the moment, I'll bookmark them for later but would you be willing to summarise the arguments in the mean time?

The second link is an archive of papers, hundreds of them, so I wasn't suggesting you read them all. My point was that this isn't at all as settled a question as the Certainists amongst us insist it is. As for the Pinocchio paper, the short version works like this: Materialism is inherently flawed up and down the line.

Bottom line is that the notion that materialism is on firm ground seems to be a fantasy shared only by those who hold it. And much as they delight in ripping other fantastical thinkers, it seems to really piss off many materialists when any challenge beyond bible verse hurling comes their way.

As long as the arguments against materialism aren't in the form of "materialism can't account for x therefore ¬materialism" then I tend to agree, however, as far as materialism not being on firm ground is concerned I would disagree - given the wealth of empirical demonstrations we have about (a significant number of the phenomena of) mind being contingent upon the brain due to various experiments where manipulation of the brain (either via experiment, chemicals or trauma) alters mental experience, including the experience of self, I would say there are very good reasons to believe that the mind is entirely the product of the brain, or more succinctly perhaps we have no good reason to believe any mental phenomena cannot be accounted for by some yet-undetermined material function.

There's no question that the brain directly effects mental experience, but there is no way that it is a given that it's a one-way street and that the mind cannot effect the brain. There are scads of studies about this, so go poke around. But right off the top, as often as it is used to dismiss this or that, the Placebo Effect also demonstrates how the mind can effect matter.

In that sense the claim that there are aspects of mind that aren't products of the brain is one that would need to be demonstrated and until such time as that is done the case for materialism is on substantially more firm ground than the case for ¬materialism.

No, sir. That's not the problem. The problem is that materialists have been shown over and over again to excel at the classic "heads I win/tails you lose" gambit when it comes to evidence that threatens their faith. These aspects have been demonstrated over and again, but nothing is ever enough and everything is instantly dismissed. Poke around and you won't have any trouble finding things to challenge the position from different angles. Here's a place to start: http://bit.ly/6HU9qj. Mind, you, I'm not making any claims for any of that stuff, as it's not my interest, but the point is that the notion that there's no contrary evidence to the material pov is pure dogma perpetuated by the choir. It's right up there with "evolution is just a theory" as far as eye-rollers go.