An argument against materialism

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473128 time=1601050907 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473039 time=1600964490 user_id=15238]
"Overlapping attributes of position in space-time" seems to describe interaction rather well. Some do. I haven't thought that but out so there might be a better definition, but that one is sufficient?
[/quote]
Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
[/quote]

That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:48 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:21 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:21 pm "Overlapping attributes of position in space-time" seems to describe interaction rather well. Some do. I haven't thought that but out so there might be a better definition, but that one is sufficient?
Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473153 time=1601056751 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473136 time=1601052525 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=473128 time=1601050907 user_id=12593]

Well, if you have interaction between subsets then you have one system.
[/quote]

That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
[/quote]
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
[/quote]

*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:59 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:48 pm That's the heart of metaphysics. We draw the line according to purpose. Sometimes we need the parts, sometimes we need the whole. Using too much or too little information is inefficient and counter-productive.

Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The correct level of detail to use depends entirely on what you're trying to do. The whole idea of emergence is that - moving from one metaphor at one level of understanding to another metaphor a higher (more complex because of additional variables or relationships) level of understanding.
I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473164 time=1601059264 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473156 time=1601057030 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=473153 time=1601056751 user_id=12593]

I don't that there is an emergence from a materialistic point of view.
[/quote]

*doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
[/quote]
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
[/quote]

All words have a meaning.
Emergence is a word.
Emergence has meaning.

Words are useful to the extent their meaning represents a state of affairs that can be manipulated.
Emergence is used in practical ways to distinguish between attributes of individual things and groups of those things which are different.
Therefore the word emergence does real work not accomplished by other words and is meaningful.

Also, GTFO. :P You're doing the cart/horse thing. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:12 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:41 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:03 pm *doubt

That is correct. It's on the "spiritual" side where the contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, must be accounted for. It's a division between layers of complexity in the metaphors we use to describe material reality.

A cluster of water molecules can be described as wet in a way no particular number of them can be. Emergence is essentially relationship, an additional understanding that occurs when parts are brought together.
Here is my argument for emergence. Consider a system made of some parts, each part has some properties. The system has another set of properties according to materialist point of view of emergence. But there must be a reason why the system has this specific set of properties rather than another properties. This means that the the state of system is a function of some properties. But the only properties which available are avaiable are properties of parts. Therefore, each property of the system is a function of property of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
All words have a meaning.
Emergence is a word.
Emergence has meaning.

Words are useful to the extent their meaning represents a state of affairs that can be manipulated.
Emergence is used in practical ways to distinguish between attributes of individual things and groups of those things which are different.
Therefore the word emergence does real work not accomplished by other words and is meaningful.

Also, GTFO. :P You're doing the cart/horse thing. Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
Any thing that we experience, a thought for example, is a property of matters. It just magnifies when you have a specific configuration.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=473183 time=1601062466 user_id=12593]
Any thing that we experience, a thought for example, is a property of matters. It just magnifies when you have a specific configuration.
[/quote]

You lost me there but also am high ATM so..
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Dimebag »

Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=473192 time=1601063884 user_id=5396]
Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the [b]configuration of matter[/b] but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
[/quote]

Watts is a moron in a number of ways we don't have a word for yet, but yes, there are three layers of filter, the biological, the cultural (basically the subconscious), and the psychological (the story we tell ourselves about who we are and how we fit in, favorite color and all that). That's the layers between Actuality and reality (to us, vs. "Reality" - our consensus experience).
SteveKlinko
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 pm Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Except in Dreams and hallucinations. I have had the experience of having a Dream where I am in a raucous crowded room with lots of people talking and other noise. After waking up during that Dream I was pleasantly treated to the absolute Silence of my bedroom.
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Dimebag »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:15 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:58 pm Any thing that we experience is not only a property of the configuration of matter but also the interactions of that configuration with our specific sensory system. There is no sound without ears, no vision without eyes and visual cortexes. Alan Watts knew this.
Except in Dreams and hallucinations. I have had the experience of having a Dream where I am in a raucous crowded room with lots of people talking and other noise. After waking up during that Dream I was pleasantly treated to the absolute Silence of my bedroom.
Yes, the question would be, can a person without eyes still dream visually. Obviously not if they had lost them from birth as the visual perceptual system would not be sufficiently trained in the forms of the world to simulate them. But a recently blinded person would surely have dreams and visual hallucinations or imaginings. Ultimately the brain must be responsible for assembling the world we see, but when we are in the waking state, the brain takes the lead of the eyes, filling in details where it is uncertain.
Post Reply