An argument against materialism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 pm Can you control your synapse?
Since when "control" (or lack of it) of the behavior of the electrons in my biological organism has anything to do with the relevance of consciousness to materialism. The cells from the central nervous system do their work and conscious experience is produced. What are we supposedly missing?
What you are missing is the question that I asked. Can you control any part of the tissue of your brain by your thought? Yes, or no?
The brain tissue is no more controllable than the heart tissue, the liver tissue, the stomach tissue or the bone tissue, so it is quite irrelevant whether one can control it or not. What is important, though, is that neurons do control our sensory-motor system, which allows that we move parts of our body by commands issued with our thoughts: to raise a hand, I think about it, my central nervous system sends the signal to the arm muscles and voila, my hand is raised. Not only that, conscious activity that one performs will be made visible as brain activity in many functional neuroimaging techniques, even if one just thinks about the activity, without performing it.
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm Then you don't understand the question that I asked. If matter behaves correctly according to the laws of nature then how the mind can intervene.
You start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "mind" is one thing different than nature. Mind is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pmNo need to say that to cause you to need to create energy. How else could you affect the matter? How thought can create energy?
Who says thought needs to affect matter or whatever? Thought is a process performed by material beings.
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 pm I am saying that the properties of the substance water are a function of the properties of the electrons and the nucleus. You could even simulate the molecule of water these days.
But saying that the properties of water are a function of the properties of its constitutive elements does not equate saying that the properties of water are the simple mereological sum of the properties of its constitutive elements. Clearly, hydrogen substance has some properties and oxygen as well, but water has other different properties not found in those substances, considered alone. I challenge you to never drink water again, just assimilate hydrogen and oxygen separately (actually this is a complementary therapy), and then tell me (when you're still alive) how it goes. Or drink hydrogen peroxide, instead, and we''ll see if the properties of hydrogen and gas have the same effect on you as water.
Hydrogen and oxygen are not elementary particles. The right expression is that the properties of water are a function of the properties of its constituents, electrons, nucleus.
There are around 30 known elementary particles, but there are known around 118 pure chemical elements, which can not be broken down to another chemical substance, and all of them have particular physical properties. Many of these pure substances can be combined to form compound substances that display very different properties than those of the pure substances. And the composite result is not the sum of the properties of the elementary substances, and one cannot say that the properties of water are the properties of its elementary constituents, even though they were a function of them. If you digest chlorine you get poisoned and die, but if you combine chlorine with sodium, you have salt to put in your food and have a delicious meal.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:52 pm
I know what consciousness is, it is the state of experience. I am asking how conscious state as thought can affect material?
As a physicist you know that energy can affect matter. What is the difference?
Consciousness is not energy.
If it is not energy and not material then it is nothing at all.
What makes you think it is not energy?
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 »

Sculptor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 10:14 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:24 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 3:26 pm I'm not sure why the notion of conscious life existing before 3.5 billion years ago came up,
In the context of bahman saying that:
(1) physical laws are mental phenomena only
(2) matter obeys physical laws
(3) if matter didn't obey physical laws, its "behavior" would be arbitrary

So I was asking him about, for example, the sun and Earth three and half billion years ago, to which his response was that the sun and the Earth "behaved" according to physical laws. I was trying to get him to see the problem with this in the context of his claims above.
I think the problem here is the phrase " I was trying to get him to see ".
Good luck with that.
lol
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 May 24, 2021 1:27 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
Since when "control" (or lack of it) of the behavior of the electrons in my biological organism has anything to do with the relevance of consciousness to materialism. The cells from the central nervous system do their work and conscious experience is produced. What are we supposedly missing?
What you are missing is the question that I asked. Can you control any part of the tissue of your brain by your thought? Yes, or no?
The brain tissue is no more controllable than the heart tissue, the liver tissue, the stomach tissue or the bone tissue, so it is quite irrelevant whether one can control it or not. What is important, though, is that neurons do control our sensory-motor system, which allows that we move parts of our body by commands issued with our thoughts: to raise a hand, I think about it, my central nervous system sends the signal to the arm muscles and voila, my hand is raised. Not only that, conscious activity that one performs will be made visible as brain activity in many functional neuroimaging techniques, even if one just thinks about the activity, without performing it.
Yes, your nervous system just sends a signal to the location where you want to move your body. Different areas of the nervous system, however, are responsible for the movement of different parts of the body. I want to know how thought can affect that specific part.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm Then you don't understand the question that I asked. If matter behaves correctly according to the laws of nature then how the mind can intervene.
You start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "mind" is one thing different than nature. Mind is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
Replace mind with thought.
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pmNo need to say that to cause you to need to create energy. How else could you affect the matter? How thought can create energy?
Who says thought needs to affect matter or whatever? Thought is a process performed by material beings.
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
But saying that the properties of water are a function of the properties of its constitutive elements does not equate saying that the properties of water are the simple mereological sum of the properties of its constitutive elements. Clearly, hydrogen substance has some properties and oxygen as well, but water has other different properties not found in those substances, considered alone. I challenge you to never drink water again, just assimilate hydrogen and oxygen separately (actually this is a complementary therapy), and then tell me (when you're still alive) how it goes. Or drink hydrogen peroxide, instead, and we''ll see if the properties of hydrogen and gas have the same effect on you as water.
Hydrogen and oxygen are not elementary particles. The right expression is that the properties of water are a function of the properties of its constituents, electrons, nucleus.
There are around 30 known elementary particles, but there are known around 118 pure chemical elements, which can not be broken down to another chemical substance, and all of them have particular physical properties. Many of these pure substances can be combined to form compound substances that display very different properties than those of the pure substances. And the composite result is not the sum of the properties of the elementary substances, and one cannot say that the properties of water are the properties of its elementary constituents, even though they were a function of them. If you digest chlorine you get poisoned and die, but if you combine chlorine with sodium, you have salt to put in your food and have a delicious meal.
This is s branch of physics, so-called condensed matter physics which enables us to calculate the physical properties of any element in terms of the physical properties of electrons and nucluens. 118 elements are either gas, liquid, solid, have color, etc. All these properties are explicable.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 11:49 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 10:15 pm

As a physicist you know that energy can affect matter. What is the difference?
Consciousness is not energy.
If it is not energy and not material then it is nothing at all.
What makes you think it is not energy?
Rock is not conscious but it has energy.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 11:49 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 11:45 pm
Consciousness is not energy.
If it is not energy and not material then it is nothing at all.
What makes you think it is not energy?
Rock is not conscious but it has energy.
Everything in te universe has energy of various different kinds, why would you deny that energy has a role to play in consciousness?
Especially since a cessation of energy in the human system can mean the loss of consciousness.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:01 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 11:49 am

If it is not energy and not material then it is nothing at all.
What makes you think it is not energy?
Rock is not conscious but it has energy.
Everything in te universe has energy of various different kinds, why would you deny that energy has a role to play in consciousness?
Especially since a cessation of energy in the human system can mean the loss of consciousness.
There are two sorts of energies, so-called kinetic and potential. There are four sorts of potential energy that they exist everywhere to the best of our knowledge as far as matter is. Which energy do you mean?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:23 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:01 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:21 pm
Rock is not conscious but it has energy.
Everything in te universe has energy of various different kinds, why would you deny that energy has a role to play in consciousness?
Especially since a cessation of energy in the human system can mean the loss of consciousness.
There are two sorts of energies, so-called kinetic and potential. There are four sorts of potential energy that they exist everywhere to the best of our knowledge as far as matter is. Which energy do you mean?
I thought you claimed to be a "physicist"?
There are so many more than 2 types.
Here are some: thermal energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy, elastic energy and gravitational energy.
Consciousness probably includes thermal, chemical, electrical, even gravitic. As well as the complex of neural matter that goes with it.
I'm guessing you are nothing like a "physicist". :lol: :lol:
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 10:31 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:23 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:01 pm

Everything in te universe has energy of various different kinds, why would you deny that energy has a role to play in consciousness?
Especially since a cessation of energy in the human system can mean the loss of consciousness.
There are two sorts of energies, so-called kinetic and potential. There are four sorts of potential energy that they exist everywhere to the best of our knowledge as far as matter is. Which energy do you mean?
I thought you claimed to be a "physicist"?
There are so many more than 2 types.
Here are some: thermal energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy, elastic energy and gravitational energy.
Consciousness probably includes thermal, chemical, electrical, even gravitic. As well as the complex of neural matter that goes with it.
I'm guessing you are nothing like a "physicist". :lol: :lol:
Do you know that there are basic four forces in nature? Do you know that Any macroscopic or submacrosopic properties are reducible to properties of irreducible parts?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 10:31 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:23 pm
There are two sorts of energies, so-called kinetic and potential. There are four sorts of potential energy that they exist everywhere to the best of our knowledge as far as matter is. Which energy do you mean?
I thought you claimed to be a "physicist"?
There are so many more than 2 types.
Here are some: thermal energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy, elastic energy and gravitational energy.
Consciousness probably includes thermal, chemical, electrical, even gravitic. As well as the complex of neural matter that goes with it.
I'm guessing you are nothing like a "physicist". :lol: :lol:
Do you know that there are basic four forces in nature? Do you know that Any macroscopic or submacrosopic properties are reducible to properties of irreducible parts?
LOL
Earth, Air, Fire and Water??? :lol:
Did you thrown that out for a bit of fun, or do you have something serious to say?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 10:31 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 8:23 pm
There are two sorts of energies, so-called kinetic and potential. There are four sorts of potential energy that they exist everywhere to the best of our knowledge as far as matter is. Which energy do you mean?
I thought you claimed to be a "physicist"?
There are so many more than 2 types.
Here are some: thermal energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy, elastic energy and gravitational energy.
Consciousness probably includes thermal, chemical, electrical, even gravitic. As well as the complex of neural matter that goes with it.
I'm guessing you are nothing like a "physicist". :lol: :lol:
Do you know that there are basic four forces in nature? Do you know that Any macroscopic or submacrosopic properties are reducible to properties of irreducible parts?
As a physicist you are supposed to know that science is descriptive, offering the answer to "HOW". What you seem to want is "WHY". science is not interested in that.
What we know is the consciousness is a property of healthy neural tissue; mostly found in the brain but also in the heart and digestive system. This is a fact of nature much like the fact that gravity is what we call it when things are attracted to each other, or the special case of magnetism in fersour metals where the molecules are in alignment.
All of these things are ultimately mysterious. You can ask why why why, but science only describes how.
Listen and learn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An argument against materialism

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 10:04 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 10:31 pm
I thought you claimed to be a "physicist"?
There are so many more than 2 types.
Here are some: thermal energy, radiant energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy, elastic energy and gravitational energy.
Consciousness probably includes thermal, chemical, electrical, even gravitic. As well as the complex of neural matter that goes with it.
I'm guessing you are nothing like a "physicist". :lol: :lol:
Do you know that there are basic four forces in nature? Do you know that Any macroscopic or submacrosopic properties are reducible to properties of irreducible parts?
LOL
Earth, Air, Fire and Water??? :lol:
Did you thrown that out for a bit of fun, or do you have something serious to say?
I am serious. People even simulate DNA these days. Its simulation is based on the laws of physics. It is called condensed matter physics. It claims that all physical properties of the whole are functions of properties of the irreducible parts.
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: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
What you are missing is the question that I asked. Can you control any part of the tissue of your brain by your thought? Yes, or no?
The brain tissue is no more controllable than the heart tissue, the liver tissue, the stomach tissue or the bone tissue, so it is quite irrelevant whether one can control it or not. What is important, though, is that neurons do control our sensory-motor system, which allows that we move parts of our body by commands issued with our thoughts: to raise a hand, I think about it, my central nervous system sends the signal to the arm muscles and voila, my hand is raised. Not only that, conscious activity that one performs will be made visible as brain activity in many functional neuroimaging techniques, even if one just thinks about the activity, without performing it.
Yes, your nervous system just sends a signal to the location where you want to move your body. Different areas of the nervous system, however, are responsible for the movement of different parts of the body. I want to know how thought can affect that specific part.
Didn't I just tell you? If I thought of moving my hand and it moved, there was a physical transaction between my central nervous system (which includes my brain) and my muscles.
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm Then you don't understand the question that I asked. If matter behaves correctly according to the laws of nature then how the mind can intervene.
You start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "mind" is one thing different than nature. Mind is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
Replace mind with thought.
No problem: you start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "thought" is one thing different than nature. Thought is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pmNo need to say that to cause you to need to create energy. How else could you affect the matter? How thought can create energy?
Who says thought needs to affect matter or whatever? Thought is a process performed by material beings.
bahman wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 9:49 pm
Hydrogen and oxygen are not elementary particles. The right expression is that the properties of water are a function of the properties of its constituents, electrons, nucleus.
There are around 30 known elementary particles, but there are known around 118 pure chemical elements, which can not be broken down to another chemical substance, and all of them have particular physical properties. Many of these pure substances can be combined to form compound substances that display very different properties than those of the pure substances. And the composite result is not the sum of the properties of the elementary substances, and one cannot say that the properties of water are the properties of its elementary constituents, even though they were a function of them. If you digest chlorine you get poisoned and die, but if you combine chlorine with sodium, you have salt to put in your food and have a delicious meal.
This is s branch of physics, so-called condensed matter physics which enables us to calculate the physical properties of any element in terms of the physical properties of electrons and nucluens. 118 elements are either gas, liquid, solid, have color, etc. All these properties are explicable.
And so? The properties of 188 elements can be explained, but the issue is that when combined to form compounds, there are other physical properties which are not those of the original elements. A block of solid hydrogen has a density of 0.086 g/cm3 and can only be had below a temperature below −259.14 °C. A block of solid water (ice) has a density of 0.9998 g/cm3 at 0°C.
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 May 27, 2021 2:22 am
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
The brain tissue is no more controllable than the heart tissue, the liver tissue, the stomach tissue or the bone tissue, so it is quite irrelevant whether one can control it or not. What is important, though, is that neurons do control our sensory-motor system, which allows that we move parts of our body by commands issued with our thoughts: to raise a hand, I think about it, my central nervous system sends the signal to the arm muscles and voila, my hand is raised. Not only that, conscious activity that one performs will be made visible as brain activity in many functional neuroimaging techniques, even if one just thinks about the activity, without performing it.
Yes, your nervous system just sends a signal to the location where you want to move your body. Different areas of the nervous system, however, are responsible for the movement of different parts of the body. I want to know how thought can affect that specific part.
Didn't I just tell you? If I thought of moving my hand and it moved, there was a physical transaction between my central nervous system (which includes my brain) and my muscles.
How such a transaction is initiated? Who or what does initiate it?
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 1:27 am
You start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "mind" is one thing different than nature. Mind is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
Replace mind with thought.
No problem: you start from the wrong, dualistic assumption that "thought" is one thing different than nature. Thought is natural, it is the product of nature, it doesn't appear out of nowhere as a supernatural force to intervene in natural processes.
What is thought from the materialistic point of view?
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 7:19 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:52 pm
Who says thought needs to affect matter or whatever? Thought is a process performed by material beings.

There are around 30 known elementary particles, but there are known around 118 pure chemical elements, which can not be broken down to another chemical substance, and all of them have particular physical properties. Many of these pure substances can be combined to form compound substances that display very different properties than those of the pure substances. And the composite result is not the sum of the properties of the elementary substances, and one cannot say that the properties of water are the properties of its elementary constituents, even though they were a function of them. If you digest chlorine you get poisoned and die, but if you combine chlorine with sodium, you have salt to put in your food and have a delicious meal.
This is s branch of physics, so-called condensed matter physics which enables us to calculate the physical properties of any element in terms of the physical properties of electrons and nucluens. 118 elements are either gas, liquid, solid, have color, etc. All these properties are explicable.
And so? The properties of 188 elements can be explained, but the issue is that when combined to form compounds, there are other physical properties which are not those of the original elements. A block of solid hydrogen has a density of 0.086 g/cm3 and can only be had below a temperature below −259.14 °C. A block of solid water (ice) has a density of 0.9998 g/cm3 at 0°C.
So? All parts of your body follow the laws of nature. Even electron within your brain. Thought is the by-product of the matter process. How thought can possibly get involved in moving the body. You don't even know the exact point related to the motion of your fingers in your brain. How could get involved in a conscious activity like moving your fingers when their motion started from different locations of your brain.
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 May 27, 2021 2:48 am How such a transaction is initiated? Who or what does initiate it?
Didn't I just tell you? I desire the experience of moving my hand and my muscles respond to the signals sent by my central nervous system.

bahman wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 2:48 amWhat is thought from the materialistic point of view?
Thought is a brain process, the physical activity of the brain in conjunction with the rest of the central nervous system, just as digestion is the physical activity of the digestive system.
bahman wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 2:48 am So? All parts of your body follow the laws of nature. Even electron within your brain. Thought is the by-product of the matter process. How thought can possibly get involved in moving the body.
Thought is a process of a biological organism, it is not the process of a dead rocks. So it is more accurate to say that it is a by-product of organic processes, which are necessarily related to material substance. Organisms move their bodies, and so can do sentient organisms that have functional capacities to process information to regulate their behavior.
bahman wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 2:48 am You don't even know the exact point related to the motion of your fingers in your brain.
Actually, that´s not true. We have a pretty good idea of the zones in the brain involved in fingers moving.
bahman wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 2:48 am How could get involved in a conscious activity like moving your fingers when their motion started from different locations of your brain.
Who cares if we didn't know. We know it happens in the brain. No brain, no central nervous system, no consciousness.
Post Reply