An argument against materialism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:34 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:06 pm
Why would the "laws of nature" operate independently of myself, a being immersed in the natural world?
I said thought is different from the laws of nature. Thought in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the thought that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
Your objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:

Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.

You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
Thoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:34 pm
I said thought is different from the laws of nature. Thought in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the thought that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.
Your objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:

Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.

You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
Thoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.
You're just pretending that you're not getting it, right? I hope so.

I never said "thoughts are involved in digestion, metabolism". I said thought is to the brain and the CNS as digestion is to the stomach and the digestive system, and what metabolism is to a cell. That makes your objection invalid.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:52 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:16 am

Your objection is not valid. It is the equivalent of this:

Digestion in fact is dependent on laws of nature within materialism. So my objection is valid. How something whose very existence depends on something else, such as the digestion that depends on matter, can affect matter when matter's behavior is already decided, according to the laws of nature.

You can change digestion for metabolism, hematogenesis, evolution, etc.
Thoughts are not involved in digestion, metabolism, etc.
You're just pretending that you're not getting it, right? I hope so.

I never said "thoughts are involved in digestion, metabolism". I said thought is to the brain and the CNS as digestion is to the stomach and the digestive system, and what metabolism is to a cell. That makes your objection invalid.
Could we please focuse on action that your conscious mind is involved with it, like thinking, and then deciding to move your arms?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:32 pm
Could we please focuse on action that your conscious mind is involved with it, like thinking, and then deciding to move your arms?
What is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:32 pm
Could we please focuse on action that your conscious mind is involved with it, like thinking, and then deciding to move your arms?
What is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
Isn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:54 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:32 pm
Could we please focuse on action that your conscious mind is involved with it, like thinking, and then deciding to move your arms?
What is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
Isn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:54 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 am
What is the point you want to discuss? All of these are consistent with materialism and natural laws.
Isn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
How about determined.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:05 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:54 pm
Isn't matter behavior decided from the past into the future?
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
How about determined.
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:05 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:25 am
"Decided" does not seem to be the right word. I hope you don't think the first Ice Age was "decided".
How about determined.
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
The issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:33 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:05 pm
How about determined.
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
The issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:33 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:12 am
So OK, matter behavior determined from the past into the future? What's the issue with that?
The issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
I have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:29 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:33 pm
The issue is that how could your thoughts intervene if matter behavior is already determined?
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
I have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.
In what sense "thoughts are different processes than the physical processes"? What justifies such a proposition?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:08 am
bahman wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:29 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 am
What makes you think thoughts are not already matter (that is, a process in matter)? There's no issue with the behavior of organic matter determined from the past into the future by means of regulated processes in complex systems.
I have nothing against thought being a process. My problem is that thoughts are different processes than the physical processes which are determined by the laws of physics.
In what sense "thoughts are different processes than the physical processes"?
Physical processes are processes that follow a very specific pattern, given a state of affair one can always say what would be the next state of affair. Can you know where your thought may go in advance? It might lead to a dead-end or might lead to a solution. It would be nice to know where your thought would go, you would be omniscient though since you would know the answer to any proper question, therefore, you don't need thinking.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:20 am What justifies such a proposition?
We formulate the physical processes using thoughts. You cannot formulate thoughts though since thoughts themselves are attempts to formulate the subject matter.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:04 pm Physical processes are processes that follow a very specific pattern, given a state of affair one can always say what would be the next state of affair.
Your obviously unaware of indeterminism and stochasticity in nature, especially in complex systems, where randomness makes it impossible to predict the results and our best approximations are based on probability. And that's what's more common in nature.
Post Reply