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 »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:07 am
bahman wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 9:35 pm

No I did not.
WHat I said there is "Things are coherent since they are material."
Please get a grip!
Could you please read my comment before you said "So am I"?
I did - it changes nothing.
We are both talking about the same thing. The only difference is you are not satisfied with materialistic explanations.
You explicitly wrote, "So am I". What do you mean by "I".
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:07 am
bahman wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:53 pm
Could you please read my comment before you said "So am I"?
I did - it changes nothing.
We are both talking about the same thing. The only difference is you are not satisfied with materialistic explanations.
You explicitly wrote, "So am I". What do you mean by "I".
pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:07 am

I did - it changes nothing.
We are both talking about the same thing. The only difference is you are not satisfied with materialistic explanations.
You explicitly wrote, "So am I". What do you mean by "I".
pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
So EDC is not part of you?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:08 pm
You explicitly wrote, "So am I". What do you mean by "I".
pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
So EDC is not part of you?
By that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:24 pm

pronoun, nominative I,possessive my or mine,objective me;plural nominative we,possessive our or ours,objective us. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
the body who is speaking or writing, in this case writing
So EDC is not part of you?
By that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"
So, can we agree that we have the matter that behaves on its own and EDC which is the byproduct of the matter process?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:26 pm
So EDC is not part of you?
By that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"
So, can we agree that we have the matter that behaves on its own and EDC which is the byproduct of the matter process?
no
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:05 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:00 pm
By that you mean "experiences, decisions, and causation ", that is all part of the "I"
So, can we agree that we have the matter that behaves on its own and EDC which is the byproduct of the matter process?
no
So, an rock also has EDC.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:06 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 8:07 pm
By this, I mean that matter behaves according to the laws of physics.
How, if there are no real laws?
Matter behaves. This behavior is determinist. Therefore, the behavior can be understood abstractly.
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor »

bahman] Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent.[/quote] [quote= wrote:I think we can agree that there are two components here: 1) Matter and 2) conscious phenomena so-called EDC. Matter does its job based on a set of laws so it is coherent. In reality, there is no need for consciousness since matter does its job blindly. But let accept that consciousness can emerge. The question is that why matter and EDC are always coherent. Let me give you an example: Supposed that you live in a universe that your conscious experience is any possible thing unrelated to what is going on under conscious reality, matter reality. Like when you experience chaos while you are doing any proper thing that a human being can properly do. Why EDC corresponds to the reality of matter?
I don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.

In any case, experiences and decisions necessarily involve the participation of sentient agents, and since in materialism sentient agents are products of matter, their sentience follows the rules by which matter operates. If consciousness is a process of matter, then it must correspond to the reality of matter.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:17 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:05 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 9:15 pm
So, can we agree that we have the matter that behaves on its own and EDC which is the byproduct of the matter process?
no
So, an rock also has EDC.
DO you mean a rock?
No a rock does not have a brain. DO you?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:06 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 pm

How, if there are no real laws?
Matter behaves. This behavior is determinist. Therefore, the behavior can be understood abstractly.
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
The laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:46 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:06 pm
Matter behaves. This behavior is determinist. Therefore, the behavior can be understood abstractly.
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
The laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.
Do the laws exist or not in your view?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm
bahman] Let's assume all our experiences, decisions, and causation (EDC) are the buy product of the matter process. The question is why EDC is coherent always. Why things are the way they are like they are coherent and not incoherent.[/quote] [quote= wrote:I think we can agree that there are two components here: 1) Matter and 2) conscious phenomena so-called EDC. Matter does its job based on a set of laws so it is coherent. In reality, there is no need for consciousness since matter does its job blindly. But let accept that consciousness can emerge. The question is that why matter and EDC are always coherent. Let me give you an example: Supposed that you live in a universe that your conscious experience is any possible thing unrelated to what is going on under conscious reality, matter reality. Like when you experience chaos while you are doing any proper thing that a human being can properly do. Why EDC corresponds to the reality of matter?
I don't see why this would be an argument against materialism. It might be an argument against realism, but given that idealism must admit some form of realism in order to avoid arbitrariness, it could well be an argument against idealism.
It is an argument against materialism since materialism claims that matter is fundamental and conscious phenomena emerge from matter activity. I am asking why EDC exists at all if anything including the human body governs the laws of physics. Why EDC is not arbitrary?
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:57 pm In any case, experiences and decisions necessarily involve the participation of sentient agents, and since in materialism sentient agents are products of matter, their sentience follows the rules by which matter operates. If consciousness is a process of matter, then it must correspond to the reality of matter.
I am asking why EDC that is the by-product of the matter process is not arbitrary. Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and there is no consciousness needed for this.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:59 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:17 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:05 pm

no
So, an rock also has EDC.
DO you mean a rock?
No a rock does not have a brain. DO you?
So the difference between a rock and you is that you have a brain. The brain however is a material object. So if we believe in the emergence of consciousness in the brain, that is due to two things: The type of matter process and the type of matter. Could we agree on these?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:49 pm
bahman wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:46 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:52 pm
Okay, but that doesn't tell us how it behaves according to laws if there are no real laws. If you're just saying that it behaves in a way that can be parsed/interpreted as laws, that's a different issue.
The laws of physics are real in the sense that matter behaves according to them. They however are not similar to an object.
Do the laws exist or not in your view?
The laws exist as an object, no. Exist as a subject, yes, our abstract ideas about them. They are real in the sense that matter follows them.
Post Reply