Materialism cannot be true

[bahman]

No, I disagree. Actually I think that hypothesis is not only wrong but has no foundation.

So you think that your body and Earth move separately?

[bahman]

“Entropy is a macroscopic concept which allows us to formulate the relation between macroscopic variable of a system. Everything can be described in term of configuration and motion of matter. That is the claim of materialist.”

Although, there is a problem. Does mater refer to something one can see, and that is causal, or to the object of maths and functions? Function can be considered as replacing the natural notion of causation. maths of modern physics as replacing the “world picture” of human beings and their folk sense data.

Materialism claims that matter is subject to causality and its behavior can be explained by mathematics.

1) Consciousness is the result of physical process, 2) There is only one process, 3) Therefore there should be only one consciousness, 4) 3 is false therefore 2 is wrong (1 cannot be wrong).

The process is the rule about how the material moves. It acts on the material. Which is many. If the consciousness is material, then it is material that dances differently under the one rule of motion. A feather moves differently than a stone, when there is air. Gravity is said to be unitary.

The problem that I am raising is that you see motion in everything. It is a single motion since everything is connected by forces.

[jayjacobus]

It doesn't matter what consciousness is made of. Consciousness is about the world and the human who is conscious. That's the purpose of consciousness (sort of).

[Troll]

I don't see any content to the way you are using the word "material". Consciousness is simply a name for the existence of the world. How would you make a distinction? There's no experience that ins't conscious. The theory of material has to do with a kind of systematic removal of the human sense of the world. I taste sugar as sweet, but is sugar sweet? A bug doesn't taste sweetness there. I see an object in colours, but a dog sees no colours. Locke still assumed what is rather natural to assume, that solidity or touch was not a human sense like sight or hearing. But, when one really thinks about it, touch too is a human thing. The material was thought as something beyond the human, but it's questionable whether it is thinkable at all; whether one can speak of a thing-in-itself at all. The concept is still alive because in physics mathematical objects, which have no sensual existence, are widely assumed in mental reflection to be the thing-in-itself.

[bahman]

It doesn't matter what consciousness is made of. Consciousness is about the world and the human who is conscious. That's the purpose of consciousness (sort of).

What you said has no relevance to our discussion.

[bahman]

I don't see any content to the way you are using the word "material". Consciousness is simply a name for the existence of the world. How would you make a distinction? There's no experience that ins't conscious. The theory of material has to do with a kind of systematic removal of the human sense of the world. I taste sugar as sweet, but is sugar sweet? A bug doesn't taste sweetness there. I see an object in colours, but a dog sees no colours. Locke still assumed what is rather natural to assume, that solidity or touch was not a human sense like sight or hearing. But, when one really thinks about it, touch too is a human thing. The material was thought as something beyond the human, but it's questionable whether it is thinkable at all; whether one can speak of a thing-in-itself at all. The concept is still alive because in physics mathematical objects, which have no sensual existence, are widely assumed in mental reflection to be the thing-in-itself.

So what is your answer to OP. Do you believe that matter creates experience? Why?

[jayjacobus]

I don't see any content to the way you are using the word "material". Consciousness is simply a name for the existence of the world. How would you make a distinction? There's no experience that ins't conscious. The theory of material has to do with a kind of systematic removal of the human sense of the world. I taste sugar as sweet, but is sugar sweet? A bug doesn't taste sweetness there. I see an object in colours, but a dog sees no colours. Locke still assumed what is rather natural to assume, that solidity or touch was not a human sense like sight or hearing. But, when one really thinks about it, touch too is a human thing. The material was thought as something beyond the human, but it's questionable whether it is thinkable at all; whether one can speak of a thing-in-itself at all. The concept is still alive because in physics mathematical objects, which have no sensual existence, are widely assumed in mental reflection to be the thing-in-itself.

You are being restricted by the OP. He seems to think that is right.

[Troll]

"The problem that I am raising is that you see motion in everything. It is a single motion since everything is connected by forces."

It's not necessary to think motion causally. That something causes something. Cause is an answer to the question: "Why?". The question can be withheld. Change does not require cause or a mover to be intelligible. Or, in your contention, multiple movers. The question about why that door slammed shut, the Why?, is concerned with a change (there is a change, and then the question comes in). Questions about the Why are Metaphysical in the traditional sense. They require us to appeal to reason and judgment.

The Materialist view, if that means the now powerful conception of physics, sensu stricto, is metaphysically neutral. Metaphysically neutral does not mean the same thing as non-metaphysical. Questions about the Why have no place in a physical description of the How, e.g., of how a stone moves under the conditions of a vacuum. "Forces" are mathematical conceptions. They replace Cause, the Why, with the Function, i.e., N = Fx. There is no causality in physics. Ergo, one can not contradict it by claiming there must be multiple movers, or inner sources of the causes of change.

This is an apodictic feature of physics, which is also, if one likes, true: Metaphysical questions don't enter in. So it is very important that we ask, are we speaking of Philosophic Materialism, as in Locke, or Materialism in the sense it is applied to the metaphysically neutral Physics? The one is a matter for argument, the other is a fact of math. The Why, as cause, takes no expression in the maths used by physicists.

The "neutrality" means that mathematical representation remains within the region of Metaphysics, and yet the Why, the essential feature of Metaphysics, can not pierce it. The "it happens" of the "neutrality" is, as it were, the photographic negative of the everyday attitude which treats the Whys of daily life as a matter of course and thoughtlessly without asking into their ground.

[Troll]

"So what is your answer to OP. Do you believe that matter creates experience? Why?"

One has to sort out the question concerning what "matter" means.

[jayjacobus]

The short answer is events cause experience through the brain to consciousness. All three are required for there to be experience.

Matter is necessary to be events. So is time.

[Troll]

"The short answer is events cause experience through the brain to consciousness. All three are required for there to be experience.

Matter is necessary to be events. So is time."

Asinine prattle with no content. One has to take the question of the meaning of one's terms seriously to say anything at all. Only then do necessary questions show themselves.

[Serendipper]

"So what is your answer to OP. Do you believe that matter creates experience? Why?"

One has to sort out the question concerning what "matter" means.

What do you think it means?

What is matter? Nevermind. What is mind? Don't matter.

How can we have one without the other?

[bahman]

"The problem that I am raising is that you see motion in everything. It is a single motion since everything is connected by forces."

It's not necessary to think motion causally. That something causes something. Cause is an answer to the question: "Why?". The question can be withheld. Change does not require cause or a mover to be intelligible. Or, in your contention, multiple movers. The question about why that door slammed shut, the Why?, is concerned with a change (there is a change, and then the question comes in). Questions about the Why are Metaphysical in the traditional sense. They require us to appeal to reason and judgment.

The Materialist view, if that means the now powerful conception of physics, sensu stricto, is metaphysically neutral. Metaphysically neutral does not mean the same thing as non-metaphysical. Questions about the Why have no place in a physical description of the How, e.g., of how a stone moves under the conditions of a vacuum. "Forces" are mathematical conceptions. They replace Cause, the Why, with the Function, i.e., N = Fx. There is no causality in physics. Ergo, one can not contradict it by claiming there must be multiple movers, or inner sources of the causes of change.

This is an apodictic feature of physics, which is also, if one likes, true: Metaphysical questions don't enter in. So it is very important that we ask, are we speaking of Philosophic Materialism, as in Locke, or Materialism in the sense it is applied to the metaphysically neutral Physics? The one is a matter for argument, the other is a fact of math. The Why, as cause, takes no expression in the maths used by physicists.

The "neutrality" means that mathematical representation remains within the region of Metaphysics, and yet the Why, the essential feature of Metaphysics, can not pierce it. The "it happens" of the "neutrality" is, as it were, the photographic negative of the everyday attitude which treats the Whys of daily life as a matter of course and thoughtlessly without asking into their ground.

In physics, the forces are mathematical things which describe how causality work. The forces can be expressed in term of functions.

Materialists claim that everything is made of matter and any phenomena, including consciousness, can be describe in term of interaction between pieces of matter and pieces' motion.

[bahman]

"So what is your answer to OP. Do you believe that matter creates experience? Why?"

One has to sort out the question concerning what "matter" means.

Matter is a thing that everything is made of it.

[jayjacobus]

"The short answer is events cause experience through the brain to consciousness. All three are required for there to be experience.

Matter is necessary to be events. So is time."

Asinine prattle with no content. One has to take the question of the meaning of one's terms seriously to say anything at all. Only then do necessary questions show themselves.

Asinine prattle? really? Are you sure you want to piss me off?

He’s the kind of a man you’d use as a blueprint to build an idiot.