News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

  • Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flash News
In summary, the article argues that chemogenesis cannot be based on chemistry alone, and that the organizational complexity of life is not based on chemical or physical potentials, but rather on spontaneous organizing behavior.
  • #211
Canute,
My problem with idealism, at least as I understand it, is the belief that all can be known by the mind alone. I assume that this means that it is our individual human mind that we it is talking about and that all can be known through reasoning and logic.
I don't think that we can know or understand everything with our mind alone. If we include the mind of God and/or the collective mind of the One or the universal consciousness, then I may not have a problem with idealism as I think that all is known by God and through him we can know all that we can or may know.
There is, however the material world and it is here for a purpose. It is this material world in which we live. By studying and exploring this material world using scientific experimentation and observation, using reason and logic, we can better understand the physical world and our physical selfs thus better know and understand the mind of God.
We are spiritual, mental and physical beings, of this I am sure. It behooves us to study and learn all that we can about all of what we are not just one aspect of our being. This is why I am not a materialist nor an idealist. Both limit our view of reality. These limits are self-imposed and artificial.
The material world is real. why would I ignore it? The mental world is real. Why would I ignore it? The spiritual world it real (in my mind it is the ultimate reality and the source of all of the rest), Why would I ignore it?
I do not know it there is a philosophical term or name for my beliefs or position nor do I care. It is true that naming something forever limits it. It is the limits that I abhor. They are artifical, unnecessary, hindering and so...limiting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
Originally posted by Royce
It is true that naming something forever limits it. It is the limits that I abhor. They are artifical, unnecessary, hindering and so...limiting.
like...materialism? haha

Seriously,
I want to respond to some things going on in here, but I'm too lazy at the moment. We need another thread defining terms. I do not just automatically assume that idealism is anything more than what I already described. By the same token, my use of the word materialism is only the flip side and nothing more.
 
  • #213
Originally posted by Royce
Canute,
My problem with idealism, at least as I understand it, is the belief that all can be known by the mind alone.'
Idealism does not necessarily mean that. It means simply that mind is ontologically prior to matter, and also, usually, that consciousness is prior to mind. Whether we can know all this by exploring our consciousness is a matter of opinion among idealists.

I assume that this means that it is our individual human mind that we it is talking about and that all can be known through reasoning and logic.
As far as I know no idealist view says that we can know the ultimate truth through reasoning or logic alone. Usually the claim is that ultimately we must know it through experience, or else that we can't know it.
I don't think that we can know or understand everything with our mind alone. If we include the mind of God and/or the collective mind of the One or the universal consciousness, then I may not have a problem with idealism as I think that all is known by God and through him we can know all that we can or may know.
Idealists tend to claim that our consciousness, our 'self', is one aspect of a fundamental cosmic consciousness, a spark from the fire or a drop of water from the lake, but generally this is not said to be God.

There is, however the material world and it is here for a purpose.
It is here, but whether it's here for a purpose is another question.

It is this material world in which we live. By studying and exploring this material world using scientific experimentation and observation, using reason and logic, we can better understand the physical world and our physical selfs thus better know and understand the mind of God.
By studying the world we can understand the world, and perhaps also something of reality. However it seems unlikely that we can understand the mind of God, or any consciousness that underlies the phenomenal world, without studying our own. We need to compare like with like.

We are spiritual, mental and physical beings, of this I am sure. It behooves us to study and learn all that we can about all of what we are not just one aspect of our being. This is why I am not a materialist nor an idealist. Both limit our view of reality. These limits are self-imposed and artificial.
Depends how you define the terms.

The material world is real. why would I ignore it? The mental world is real. Why would I ignore it? The spiritual world it real (in my mind it is the ultimate reality and the source of all of the rest), Why would I ignore it?
Doesn't that make you an idealist? Idealists don't say that the physical world doesn't exist. They assert only that it's not fundamental.
 
  • #214
How does the original post's biological model account for the living/nonliving interface, and how one assimilates the other?
 
  • #215
Then, Canute, in light of your post above, for which I thank you, I am more of an idealist than I thought I was. This does not, however, do away with my pragmatic or spiritual sides.
Whether is be cosmic of universal consciousness, it is my belief that it is just one more aspect of God as God is the sourse of all and all that is is of God, IMHO.
I would say that the spirit is prior to consciousness, consciousness is prior to mind, mind prior to matter but all are interconnected, indivisible and interactive. But, as I say this is only my opinion based on my beliefs based on my I understanding of what I have been shown, given and observed via meditation and living.
Thanks again for the information and clarification. I would like to hear your definition of materialism.
 
  • #216
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Pooh. Crummy ad hominem chep shot.

Exactly what was ad hominem about pointing to your apparent outrage at me challenging the claims of scientific materialism? And how would you catagorize the statement " your pompous self justification"?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Scientific materialism can show (A) a stedy advance of ever more powerful abilities in biology. and (B) a future direction which (being future) has not been achieved but which you do not seem to disagree with.

Right, no problem with any of that.

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
That directed arrow points to the in vitro creation of life.

I say, to YOU and other committed materialists that is what the arrow points to, but all I see is the ability of science to understand and work with biology. I do not YET see a demonstration of the potentials of matter and physical processes which show they have what is needed to produce life. Of course, that doesn't stop the scientific materialists from claiming they all but have it figured out does it? In fact, that is exactly what you appear to be doing.

What if you nor anyone else ever demonstrates that non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry? Are we then justified in saying materialist philosophy has been proven wrong? No we are not; we are justified in saying that abiogenesis has not been replicated. Conversely, if a man is able to create images on a photo negative with his mind, are spiritualists justified in saying it proves spiritualism? No, we are only justified in saying mind can impress photo negatives somehow. If you can work with and manipulate biology through it's chemistry, are you justified in saying chemistry is all there is to life? No, you are justified in saying biology can be manipulated through its chemistry.

And then comes the question, of why someone lacking proper evidence would jump to the conclusion which just so happens to support their personal philosophy. Are we to trust them when they say, "but, but, but . . . we are objective scientists, and therefore incapable of being materialist propagandists"?

You are so confident science is going to do it. Good! Keep at it and maybe you/science will. But no one had done it yet have they? And until you can do it, why not wait to publically state matter/physical processes are "most likely" the basis of life?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
What does the other side show? People's opinions, squabbles over definitions that just show the ideas aren't well defined . . .

I haven't tried to control the side debates in this thread, although I did take the time to define what I meant by materialism hoping that would help. I can't speak for that, but I can speak for myself.

As I said before, I have tried to make my point with evidence and logic, and I challenge you to show where I departed significantly from that approach. What about you? Did you bother to read the arguments I advanced for why I believe there isn't enough evidence to support the public claims of materialists? Have you refuted even one? Really, who is debating here, and who is being pompous?

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
. . . and NO PROGRESS.

Well, whose values are we going to use to determine what progress is? I have friends who think progress is having their kids read Tolstoy and do algebra by age 4; and I have other friends who believe a happy, emotionally healthy child at age 4 is better progress.

What if we figure out how to create life and discover every other secret of the universe, but we are still discontent and unhappy? We live longer, but just to become miserable old farts who don't believe in anything. All our technological skills give us new abilities to blow each other up. We understand how everything "works" but the resulting one diminsional perspective produces little wisdom.

Progress -- for those of us fortunate to live in a free society, we each get to decide those things we consider progress, and we get to decide what priority we give each type of progress.
 
Last edited:
  • #217
And, thank God or who-whatever. Amen! or Right on, Les!
 
  • #218
Originally posted by Loren Booda
How does the original post's biological model account for the living/nonliving interface, and how one assimilates the other?

It is a fair question, but it isn't really what this thread is about. Fliption said it above, and I'll repeat it.

My point has been that at this time there isn't enough evidence for those of the materialist persuasion to be claiming to the world that abiogenesis is "most likely" how life began. If you read through the thread, you will see I do say exactly where I believe crucial evidence is lacking, and why I believe it is crucial.
 
  • #219
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a big assumption built into it, namely that there is a clear line between living and inanimate matter. Not something we've managed to prove yet. Abiogenesis imples speciation. Seem to me that there isn't even any evidence of speciation yet.
 
  • #220
Also, the analogy is misleading because, totally separate from the orange versus apple discussion, fruit can be distinguished from non- fruit.
And fruit and non-fruit can be encapsulated within the overall idea of matter.

Your definition of materialism cannot be distinguished from anything. It is a useless term.
My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful. It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to. One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?
What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life, when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.

It doesn't make sense to say that philosophy texts aren't consistent with materialists because that's who the materialists are! They are the philosophers writing those texts.
People writing definitions of science (like Popper, Kuhn, and others) have consistently disagreed with each other. A single benchmark cannot be regarded as absolutely authoritive.

How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.

Just because we have a word and a definition for god means that god exists?
In a way. Weak atheists who accept the idea of divinity must accept that there is a possibility that God exists. Strong atheists who deny even the possibility of God existing deny the idea of divinity itself.

Canute:
What makes it likely to be true is the illogic of all views based on the idea that only physical things exists.
Wha?? Perhaps you might want to define physical here.
As to whether the immaterial exists it is generally accepted that consciousness has no extension.
I do not think that is true.

Royce:
Materialist are aware of these problems and so they keep expanding their definitions to taken more and more immaterial things that they cannot deny exists but redifine them as either material or the product of material.
IMHO, that is the strength of materialism, not its weakness. Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard.
 
Last edited:
  • #221
Originally posted by FZ+
My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful.
That's fine. You're a materialist, as you've every right to be. But you should realize that this is not a scientific position, it is a conjecture or a belief. Apologies if I posted this before but..

“This brings us to…the claim of materialistic science that matter is the only reality and that consciouness is its product. This thesis has often been presented with great authority as a scientific fact that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. However, when it is subjected to closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that it is not and never was a serious scientific statement, but a metaphysical assertion maquerading as one. It is an assertion that cannot be proved and thus lacks the basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis, namely testability.”

P240 Stanislav Grof – The Cosmic Game – 1998 State University of New York


It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to. One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?
Yes, but what if it can't? As Max Planck said:

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery in nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we try to solve.”

What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life,
It would be very useful indeed if it leads to a better theory.

when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.
No. Most scientists believe in a sort of 'materialism of the gaps'.

How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.
If you think everything is physical then you're a physicalist, unless you want to add some provisos.

Canute:
Wha?? Perhaps you might want to define physical here.
Anything that isn't immaterial.

I do not think that is true.
I think it's accepted. Try http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html

Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.
It denies the distinction by denying that there is anything that is not material. That is an assertion about reality, not just a play of words.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard. [/B]
I doubt it, from the sound of it. I think you'd probably use Kant's get out clause, which does actually work...

“ in whatever way the Deity should be made known to you, and even … if He should reveal Himself to you: it is you … who must judge whether you are permitted to believe in Him, and to worship Him.”

Kant – as quoted by Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974)
 
  • #222
Originally posted by Canute
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a big assumption built into it, namely that there is a clear line between living and inanimate matter. Not something we've managed to prove yet. Abiogenesis imples speciation. Seem to me that there isn't even any evidence of speciation yet.

Canute, you've mystified me on this one. My experience has been that materialists try to blur distinctions between living and inanimate matter by arguing there is nothing unusual about living chemistry.

Then, why does abiogenesis imply speciation?

Finally, I don't understand why you say there isn't any evidence of speciation yet. There are millions of species, so clearly speciation happens; and we've observed speciation in a few generations, with finches for example.

I suspect I've not understood what you are saying. I'd like to understand your points.
 
  • #223
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Canute, you've mystified me on this one.
My fault. I was a bit cryptic.

My experience has been that materialists try to blur distinctions between living and inanimate matter by arguing there is nothing unusual about living chemistry.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it in that way. Materialists usually have a defintion of life that distinguishes the living from the inanimate. This raises the problem of abiogenesis. I was suggesting that maybe there is a continuum from humans to bacteria to electrons.(see 'microphenominalism' for instance) In this case abiogenesis never happened. Maybe it's our definition of life that leaves us scratching our heads as to how it arose.

Then, why does abiogenesis imply speciation?
Well, I'm off my patch here so might get this wrong. Abiogenesis, and current evolutionary theory, suggests that life started once, (or at least with one type of entity) and that all species arise from one genetic source. This requires speciation.

Finally, I don't understand why you say there isn't any evidence of speciation yet. There are millions of species, so clearly speciation happens; and we've observed speciation in a few generations, with finches for example.
There is no conclusive evidence for speciation as far as I know. No intermediate species have been found to show that the process occurs. Galapagos finches, long used as an example of speciation, are now considered by many specialists to be all one species. They have been shown to interbreed successfully, if a little reluctantly.
 
  • #225
Originally posted by FZ+

Royce:

IMHO, that is the strength of materialism, not its weakness. Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.

If God does exist, I'll be happy to pick up a ruler, and measure the length of his beard.
What you see as strength as a materialist, I see as a weakness. Mainly because by claiming that everything is material even the sujective and immaterial then the term material becomes meaningless as does the term materialist. With that blurring there is no difference between materialist and my type of pragmatic idealism, to coin a phrase. A materialist then becomes a everythingist or universalist, to coin more phrases; i.e. a materialist now believes in everything but believes that matter is prior to everything. I believe in everything but believe that spirit is prior. Essential we both believe in everything but disagree in which way the arrow points.
I am still at a loss how someone cam believe that matter which is clearly an effect or final result of the Big Bang can be the primary form of reality and all else is the effect or product of physical material processes. Blurring the distinction between matter and energy is no help as once matter is formed it takes very special circumstances and the input of huge amounts of energy to convert matter back into energy. It is not as simple as freezing or heating water to change its state.
 
  • #226
Originally posted by FZ+
And fruit and non-fruit can be encapsulated within the overall idea of matter.


Matter? What's that? Do you mean matter as opposed to something else? What is this something else? If there is nothing else then matter means nothing to me. Useless word.

My definition of materialism is that materialism is everything, and that any distinction we put in is not going to be in any way useful.
I know what you're definition is. I just don't believe it is the correct definition of the word. At least I haven't been able to find any credible usage of it in the form "material=everything".

It is an useful term because it implies an acceptance in that the universe is one thing, one thing that we can understand and apply the same principles to.

No, it is not useful. We already have words that do that. Namely, "universe", "everything", "existence", "reality". We don't need another word to mean this. As a matter of fact, continuing to use and enter debates in this forum on this word is very much like debating with people who believe in the existence of things that aren't included in "everything". It's a silly position. To debate someone like this is just debating for the sake of debating. Why use a word that obviously has so much confusion attached to it when it is not needed? (I still argue your definition is wrong)

One might say - what use is it to create a non-material distinction, when as far as science or anything is concerned, it can be treated the same way?
This is loaded with assumptions. You are continuing to criticize the idea of developing a definitional distinction based on you're own definitions. It doesn't make sense to me to criticize definition A because it is inconsistent with definition B.

To clarify, why do you assume that a distinction has anything to do with what science is capable of if you aren't assuming something about what that definition is? For example, if I say that from now on "material" means solid things only and immaterial means liquid and gaseous things only, what is the implication of this distinction for science? There is none. They're just words for communication purposes. Now we can say "immaterial" when referring to these things instead of "liquid and gaseous" things. Minor verbal convenience.

While this example is not very useful and no one would agree with these definitions, it is an example of what must be done here. We must come to agreement on what the distinction is and only then can we say whether these distinctions actually exists! As my example above illustrates.

What use is, for example, LWSleeth's insistence that materialist science forces only a standard chemical explanation of life, when materialist scientists have always used mysterious laws to explain the universe? Science and materialism has no objections to a law of life, as there has been a law of gravitation, or momentum, of light, of electromagnetics and so on - most scientists simply do not think it is yet required.

I think Les' primary point has been that the evidence doesn't warrant the certainty. You claim that science doesn't feel a law of life is required "yet", but Les' point has been to suggest the insufficient evidence to justify this certainty that is being advertised is misleading and is itself reason to doubt that science would "ever" consider a law of life even if the time did come to consider one.


How about telling me what you would label my beliefs as? Maybe we can then have a poll to see who is a materialist, after all.

I'm going to try to make this clear once again. I am not talking about your beliefs. I've already said that I'm not trying to change your belief systems. I'm suggesting that you need a new word to describe it. You tell me what you believe about reality without using words like matter and materialism and I'll find a label.

In a way. Weak atheists who accept the idea of divinity must accept that there is a possibility that God exists. Strong atheists who deny even the possibility of God existing deny the idea of divinity itself.
They deny the idea of what? Divinity? What's that? How can I deny something if, by the very fact of denying it, there is no concept to deny? This is related to the quotes below.

Materialism is based on the denial of the distinction, and the reclassifying is the demonstration of that.

At the risk of being offensive I have to say this view is completely ridiculous. Not only does it not make any sense but this fusion of language/truth is an extremely unproductive idea for a philosophy forum. If this is what people really think then I might as well resign my handle now and move on.
 
Last edited:
  • #227
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Observed Instances of Speciation
Thanks for this. I'm no biologist but I feel it highlights the problems much as answers it. But that's just me.

However I thought that there was still a strong minority of professionals who feel that speciation has not yet been proved. Is that wrong?
 
  • #228
Royce

None of my business but I think Fliptions right. Your definition of 'material' would be very confusing if people started using it.
 
  • #229
Originally posted by Canute
Materialists usually have a defintion of life that distinguishes the living from the inanimate. This raises the problem of abiogenesis. I was suggesting that maybe there is a continuum from humans to bacteria to electrons.(see 'microphenominalism' for instance) In this case abiogenesis never happened. Maybe it's our definition of life that leaves us scratching our heads as to how it arose.

Okay, I see what you mean.

Originally posted by Canute
Well, I'm off my patch here so might get this wrong. Abiogenesis, and current evolutionary theory, suggests that life started once, (or at least with one type of entity) and that all species arise from one genetic source. This requires speciation.

True. I suppose I haven't questioned whether speciation happened, or even that life was formed orignially in Earth's early pre-biotic soup. I don't know if it did or didn't, so I just accept as a reasonable hypothesis that it did. What I question is the ability of chemistry, or any sort of quantum manuevering, to spontaneously shape itself into a life form. It looks to me as if there is another force/principle at work in life missing from non-living matter.

Originally posted by Canute
There is no conclusive evidence for speciation as far as I know. No intermediate species have been found to show that the process occurs. Galapagos finches, long used as an example of speciation, are now considered by many specialists to be all one species. They have been shown to interbreed successfully, if a little reluctantly.

After reading the article selfAdjoint recommended I realized I wasn't as up on this subject as I thought I was. The evidence does appear sketchy, depending on how one defines "species."
 
  • #230
Originally posted by Royce
Mainly because by claiming that everything is material even the sujective and immaterial then the term material becomes meaningless as does the term materialist. With that blurring there is no difference between materialist and my type of pragmatic idealism, to coin a phrase. A materialist then becomes a everythingist or universalist, to coin more phrases;
Thank you! I've been saying this for pages now.

i.e. a materialist now believes in everything but believes that matter is prior to everything. I believe in everything but believe that spirit is prior. Essential we both believe in everything but disagree in which way the arrow points.


And this is the result. FZ(and others) are using a definition that doesn't allow for anyone to really know exactly what they disagree on. The above quote is Royce trying to make the distinction because he knows there is one. I don't have a clue what FZ thinks Royce is up too since he thinks there is no distinction.

We need some serious realignment on definitions before the debate can continue. I say go back to abiogensis topic for now and deal with materialism in a new thread.
 
  • #231
Originally posted by Canute
Thanks for this. I'm no biologist but I feel it highlights the problems much as answers it. But that's just me.

However I thought that there was still a strong minority of professionals who feel that speciation has not yet been proved. Is that wrong?

Canute, I would use that site as a possible source for more links or references but I wouldn't take any of the actual editorial writing there seriously. I have found the writing there to be very "focused" on an agenda. While some may argue that their agenda is to rebutt untruths, too much energy for a cause can be bad. A cause against a familar enemy can lead to bitterness. Bitterness can be blinding and breed bias and the tone at that site seems a bit poisonous to me.

I actually agree with the cause and the views for the most part but the tone is telling.

I'm not talking about this article specifically, just Talkorigins in general.
 
Last edited:
  • #232
Here is food for thought;

Physicalist philosophers believe mind-states are nothing more than brain-states within the cranium and central nervous system. There is a subtle but important distinction made between the act of thinking involving a neural process and actually being a neural process. I’ve noticed identity theory expressed in topics here covering the mind. In this philosophy the existence of an immaterial mind is an utter impossibility, and to argue for such a thing is fruitless because it will never be accepted, and as with everything there are versions of this line of thought.
 
  • #233


Originally posted by BoulderHead
Physicalist philosophers believe mind-states are nothing more than brain-states within the cranium and central nervous system. There is a subtle but important distinction made between the act of thinking involving a neural process and actually being a neural process. I’ve noticed identity theory expressed in topics here covering the mind. In this philosophy the existence of an immaterial mind is an utter impossibility, and to argue for such a thing is fruitless because it will never be accepted, and as with everything there are versions of this line of thought.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what happens. Are we usingn neuronal processes, or are we neuronal processes? And if we are using them, the who/what is the "we" that is using.
 
  • #234
I see a topic relating to this has been created. I will post over there but possibly not for a week or two as I'm preparing to engage myself in an annual event that will take me away from the computer. I want to compose my thoughts on the matter first, too.


https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11352
 
  • #235
Originally posted by Fliption
Thank you! I've been saying this for pages now.

Your welcome; but, I wasn't posting to support your argument. The discussions merged to This common point. I do not have a definition of materialism but have been using and debating the definition of others. I don't even know what the classical definition of materialism is; but, then I don't think that many here do either or care. As usual Fliption, we think alike and agree on many points comeing from different place for different reasons. It is a measure of another man's intelligence how much he agrees with you. You obviously are very intelligent.


And this is the result. FZ(and others) are using a definition that doesn't allow for anyone to really know exactly what they disagree on. The above quote is Royce trying to make the distinction because he knows there is one. I don't have a clue what FZ thinks Royce is up too since he thinks there is no distinction.

I don't think that Royce has any idea what he is up too either. I am at a complete lost at how the term material or materialism can be perverted to mean everything. The only way that this could be so is the absolute unreasonable dogma that nothing but material exists and the absolute refusal to consider the possiblity of anything else, immaterial or non-material, to exist much less debate about it.
This is the closed mind in absolute denial of any or all other possiblitites that Les and I are talking about. Les's point has been made and validated by the definition that FZ+ and others are using.
FZ+ has been hoisted on his own petard by his own posts and definition. To be consistant, of course, he can never see it much less admit it.


We need some serious realignment on definitions before the debate can continue. I say go back to abiogensis topic for now and deal with materialism in a new thread.

Oh no! Not another Materialism vs non-materialism thread!
Trying to come up with a workable definition I can see.
 
  • #236
Originally posted by Royce
Oh no! Not another Materialism vs non-materialism thread!
Trying to come up with a workable definition I can see.

Yes I meant a thread on definitions. We need to be clear that there is a difference between debating what is true versus what the meaning of a word is. Some people don't seem to understand the distinction. I've run into this before.
 
  • #237
R.I.P.

I tried to write an epitaph for this thread several pages ago, but it seems to have been premature. I am guessing once again this beast is dead, and so here’s some new closing words.

I did not, as selfAdjoint accused, start this thread to “flame” materialists. I admit to taunting, but the taunt has absolutely nothing to do with materialism. My taunt was meant to confront a certain attitude I see in scientific materialists. That attitude could be present in any philosophy, including spiritual philosophy, in which case I’d confront it there too! My perception has been that in debates, some scientific materialists (i.e., not all) are not objective about the evidence we have concerning life’s origin, and what life itself really is. Further, that lack of objectivity, in my view, is being presented as science, when really it is over-eager materialists trying to bolster the probability of their philosophy.

So my aim was to confront this element that increasingly is showing up in science presentations, from school books and TV science specials, to debates at science forums. In my opinion, it is not science promoting abiogenesis, it is materialism. A BIG difference. Science is neutral, materialism is not. Science discovers what it can, and doesn’t discover what it cannot. Materialism is a belief, and these days science is providing lots of facts with which materials can argue their case.

Why did I use the term “denial” in my thread title? It is because of two things that went on with scientific materialists in this thread almost (thank you Boulderhead) without exception. One was to deny there is the slightest unusual thing going on in life, and the other was to deny that materialist belief is affecting science objectivity in making claims about the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Regarding the “unusual thing going on in life,” all physical activity tends toward disorder, and in our universe the vast majority of delays heading in that direction (such as, for instance, that found in the organization of solar processes) are relatively simple. But the delay toward disorder found in life forms is incredibly atypical of inanimate physical processes because it is exemplified by layer after layer after layer, etc. of interdependent organizational complexity which, with each layer, becomes more operationally effective as a system. Once we factor in emergent phenomena such as consciousness, living organization can be seen as truly and astonishingly different from all other types of physical aggregating.

Then add this fact in. A living form “dies,” and all that systemic organization breaks down like a house of cards. It goes fast, really fast. Yet all the chemistry is there, all the chemical potentials are present. Why does it fall so much faster into disorder? If you kill me without harming my organs too much, say by lethal injection, then one moment I am alive, all my chemistry is operating cooperatively to sustain possibly the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the universe. The next moment it is all collapsing, rotting. At that moment of death something is lost, and the effect of that loss is so dramatic it is hard to see how anyone can’t notice and wonder about it unless, that is, their objectivity has been compromised.

Which brings us back to the main point of this thread. I don’t know how life got started, but with the evidence we have now I am not ready to say it was abiogenesis. If you are a materialist, then maybe you believe in abiogenesis, which is perfectly fine with me.

But if you are going to use science to make your case for abiogenesis, then I ask you to abide by the rules of proof, and to objectively present to the world what evidence supports abiogenesis, and what evidence is lacking. What I don’t want to hear is someone posing as an objective scientist trying to advance materialist philosophy by claiming abiogenesis is “most likely” when what they should say is, “I personally believe . . .”

I still plan, after the holidays, on starting another thread on “Why Materialists and Immaterialists Disagree.” It will not be a “taunt” this time, and so maybe a couple of people writing about supposed vitalist nonsense and non-material denial will have a chance participate in an open minded way. It’s not materialism I have a problem with, it is propaganda disguised as objective opinion, and dubious debating tactics.
 
  • #238
Les

Well said. It is a perfectly well known fact that materialism is a metaphysical theory. However we teach it to kids as if it was true. Not in so many words, but disguised in everything else we teach them. In England it is embodied in the National Curriculum and taken for granted by everyone who doesn't think about it. I presume it's much the same in the US.

Worse still, even where there is debate about it tends to be based on a naive opposition between theism and physicalism, with no recognition of the real complexity of the issue.

Increasingly we base our attitude to life, social structure and personal behaviour on a materialist metaphysic. Yet for all we know it could be complete nonsense.
 

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
850
Replies
1
Views
724
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
5
Replies
163
Views
22K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top