Objectivism vs. Materialism and Idealism

[heusdens]

Is Objectivism Merely a
Disguised Materialism?

by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.



Objectivist philosophers may take me to task for claiming that Objectivism appears to be simply another form of philosophical Materialism. Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the current and leading spokesman for the Objectivist movement, explicitly denies that Objectivists are Materialists. (See p. 33 in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.)

I challenge what Peikoff says. Objectivist metaphysics (what there is of it) seems to fall quite comfortably into the Materialistic camp. Consider the following description of Materialism by a contemporary Materialist philosopher:

Modern Materialism holds that the universe is an unlimited material entity; that the universe, including all matter and enerby (motion or force), has always existed, and will always exist; that the world is a hard, tangible, material, objective reality that man can know. It holds that matter existed before mind; that the material world is primary and that thoughts about this world are secondary. (Charles S. Seely, Modern Materialism: A Philosophy of Action.)

I don't think there is much, if anything, in that paragraph which would be denied by Objectivists. If I am wrong, I will apologize and stand corrected.

If Objectivism is not a disguised Materialism, it is certainly not a philosophy of metaphysical Idealism (Peikoff definitely denies that it is Idealism of any sort). If Objectivism doesn't fall into the Materialist camp and doesn't fall into the Idealist camp, where, then, does it fall?

There seems to me to be only three possibilities for a metaphysics:

* Materialism, which believes all reality is material and only material;
* Idealism, which believes all reality is nothing more than an Idea or Thought or Mind (whether our thoughts or God's thoughts);
* A moderate Realism which accepts the independent objectivity of the material world, while allowing for some sort of nonmaterial or immaterial reality as well.

So which camp does Objectivism fall into?

I suspect that Leonard Peikoff might respond: "None of them. Objectivism is its own camp."

To which I respond: "What is the status of ideas and the intellect in Objectivist philosophy? Does the intellect and the ideas it uses, which are 'beings' or 'existents,' have material reality or nonmaterial reality?"
There seems to be only two choices here. If the intellect and ideas are material existents, along with everything else in the universe, then Objectivism would appear to fall into the Materialist camp.

If, on the other hand, the intellect and ideas are nonmaterial existents, and everything else in the universe is Idea or Thought or Mind, then Objectivism fall into the Idealist camp.

But Objectivism is clearly not an Idealist philosophy. Since it claims (or seems to claim) that nothing exists but matter (whether in different forms or not is irrelevant since it is still basically material), this would seem to include the intellect and ideas. This would place Objectivism solidly in the Materialist camp, in spite of its claims to the contrary.

What about the third alternative? Could Objectivism be a moderate Realism? But then it would allow for both material and nonmaterial reality, and also, heaven forbid!, the possibility OF GOD or a UNIVERSAL MIND or NONMATERIAL CREATOR. Objectivism is, alas, an atheistic philosophy and does not admit the possibility of a First Cause or Creator of any sort. I submit, then, Objectivism cannot be a moderate Realism.

So I go back to my original question. Is Objectivism merely a disguised Materialism? And, if this is what Objectivism really is, then on what metaphysical grounds does it claim to be fundamentally different from traditional mechanistic Materialism or, my God!, the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx?

NOTE: My criticism of Objectivism should not be construed to be a total rejection of that philosophy. There are many points of agreement between Objectivism and my conception of moderate philosophical Realism, especially on many epistemological principles and in ethical and political theory.

From: http://radicalacademy.com/objcriticism.htm

The claim that Objectivism is neither Materialism nor Idealism (Objectivists reject both) can not be taken seriously (whatever they claim).
If consciousness is to be taken something entirely different as matter (which Objectivism urges us to!), this would be entirely anti-scientific. How can consciousness have any real effect in the world, without it being something material in fundament?
How could there even be consciousness, without a material origin?

 

[AsianSensationK]

Seems to be signs of a weak theory.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Since your doubt is based on a presupposition of how consciousness works, it's baseless beyond your unfalsifiable claim. The simple refutation of your reasonable doubt is that we don't know what consciousness is or how it works.

 

[AsianSensationK]

You don't need a presupposition about consciousness to raise the question. You just need a more general question about interaction between things.

Material things are capable of interacting with other material things. If immaterial things are incorporeal, then how do they interact with material things? Through what process would it occur?

If you can't come up with a plausible explanation, then should we assume immaterial things exist, or should we take a different route and see how far the materialist view can take us?

 

[Hurkyl]

If consciousness is to be taken something entirely different as matter (which Objectivism urges us to!), this would be entirely anti-scientific.

Why? I don't see how such a hypothesis directly opposes the pursuit of science.

If you meant that it's not a scientific hypothesis, then I would agree with you. But so what? Materialism is not a scientific hypothesis either.


You appear to be first assuming materialism, and then using that assumption to evaluate other philosophies. Is that a correct assessment? FYI, that makes for a rather weak argument. (Except to those that already believe in materialism, or if we're doing a hypothetical argument to see what the materialistic position implies)

 

[whatta]

can someone please define "matter" for the purposes of this thread? I feel once it's done, we can immediately judge if objectivism is materialism or not.

 

[heusdens]

Since your doubt is based on a presupposition of how consciousness works, it's baseless beyond your unfalsifiable claim. The simple refutation of your reasonable doubt is that we don't know what consciousness is or how it works.

That is correct, but does that mean that consciousness could have aspects that are not entirely material?

Even if we don't entirely know how consciouss works, is there any indication it is not material?

 

[heusdens]

can someone please define "matter" for the purposes of this thread? I feel once it's done, we can immediately judge if objectivism is materialism or not.

Materialism defines matter as that what is external and independent of consciousness.

 

[heusdens]

Why? I don't see how such a hypothesis directly opposes the pursuit of science.

If you meant that it's not a scientific hypothesis, then I would agree with you. But so what? Materialism is not a scientific hypothesis either.


You appear to be first assuming materialism, and then using that assumption to evaluate other philosophies. Is that a correct assessment? FYI, that makes for a rather weak argument. (Except to those that already believe in materialism, or if we're doing a hypothetical argument to see what the materialistic position implies)

Materialism is a philosophical position. One that almost always is the fundament for scientific theories, esp. in exact sciences.

I'm just arguing about what the base position of Objectivism is, in regard to Materialism and Idealism.

Objectivism claims not to be in either camp.

Objectivisim is based on the primacy of existence ("existence exists" which is however just a tautology, and does not seem to limit itself to the material only, but excludes the supernatural).

Otherwise it seems to claim that there is nothing that escapes the material.

So, how is that any different as materialism?

 

[whatta]

Materialism defines matter as that what is external and independent of consciousness.

Oh I hate these definitions. There is no use to define X in terms of Y, if Y is not less controversial than X. What now? Define consciousness?

 

[baywax]

Materialism defines matter as that what is external and independent of consciousness.

I don't see that definition in this collection from the net.

Materialism

a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters
(philosophy) the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Materialism is the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to 'exist' is matter; that fundamentally, all things are comprised of 'material'. The view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, and most famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

the doctrine that all items in the world are composed of matter. Because not all physical entities are material, the related doctrine of physicalism, claiming that all items in the world are physical entities, has tended to replace materialism.
www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm

the use of innovative and unique features in theories, forms, style, themes, and topics; involves an intentional and revolutionary break with conservative recognized styles of literature. London's crisp, short sentences were a break from the "purple prose" of the Gilded Age, as was his choice of naturalist topics.
sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Essays/glossary.html

Values, attitudes, and expectations related to conservation, pollution, materialism, equity, and the sharing of resources. Preferences regarding type of dwelling and urbanicity.
www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html

the doctrine that matter is the only reality, and that everything in the universe, including thought, will, and feeling, can be explained only in terms of the physical. Basically synonymous with naturalism.
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/[/URL]

Materialism is the philosophical belief that the world is comprised of small units of “material” These small substances are what comprise the body. The theory postulates that the body is like a machine made up of various parts. If we understand the parts well enough, we can “fix” the broken ones and restore the body to health. This is in contrast to the vitalistic belief of homeopathy which postulates an immaterial vital force or dynamic energy as the basis of all life.
[url]www.centerforhomeopathy.com/glossary.html[/url]

The view that the world is entirely composed of matter. Philosophers now tend to prefer the term physicalism, since physics has shown that matter itself resolves into forces and energy, and is just one amongst other physically respectable denizens of the universe.
[url]www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/intro/odop.html[/url]

A general philosophical view that only physical processes exist. The term is also applied to philosophical theories of mind which claim that mental states are identical with brain states. See also Dualism, Eliminativism, Functionalism.
[url]www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/books/computers-and-thought/gloss/node1.html[/url]

The philosophical view that ascribes all mental experiences to neural events. See dualism.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070579431/student_view0/chapter1/glossary.html

[A379] In his discussion of the Fourth Paralogism, Kant opposes to Cartesian dualism about the soul materialism and pneumatism; Kant decries "psychologists" who take appearances as things in themselves and adopt either materialism (a materialist "admits into his system nothing but matter alone"), spiritualism ("admits only thinking beings"), or dualism.
[url]www.texttribe.com/text/kant_glossary.htm[/url]

The doctrine that the facts of experience are all to be explained by reference to the reality, activities, and laws of physical or material substance
[url]www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm[/url]

The claim that only material (physical) things exist. Often used in PHILOSOPHY OF MIND in contrast to the claim that mental objects and events cannot be reduced to physical objects and events.
[PLAIN]www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml[/URL]

has never been materialist enough. It focused too much on quantity, too little on quality. It has missed the sensual sense and value of its subject matter.
[PLAIN]www.a-studio.nl/en/writings/abc/[/URL]

Represented by the work of Karl Marx and later anthropologist following Marx's analysis, this approach understands culture to be the product of the material conditions of a given society. In oversimplified terms, things like religion, law, and even artforms, reflect the power relationships of a given society as they are generated by the material order of that society.
[PLAIN]www.qvctc.commnet.edu/brian/antxtrmc.html[/URL]

The affirmation that only material things exist, that there is no such thing as spirit. In the eighteenth century, materialism countered the religious belief that there was a soul to survive the death of the body, and thus, that there was an afterlife. Today materialism expresses itself in the effort to link neuro-science to conscious experience: thought is purely material behavior. ...
alpha.fdu.edu/~jbecker/nature/natureglossary.html

The doctrine that the only reality is matter; that the universe is not governed by intelligence or purpose but only by mechanical cause and effect.
[PLAIN]www.li.suu.edu/library/humtxt/glossary/glossary.htm[/URL]

everything in nature, including the human mind consists of matter and obeys laws of physics. Hence, there are no supernatural entities.
[PLAIN]www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/2.%20definitions%20of%20some%20key%20terms.htm[/URL][/quote]

 

[heusdens]

I don't see that definition in this collection from the net.

Here:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#materialism

Materialism

Those philosophical trends which emphasise the material world (the world outside of consciousness) as the foundation and determinant of thinking, especially in relation to the question of the origin of knowledge. Compare with idealism. For materialism, thoughts are “reflections” of matter, outside of Mind, which existed before and independently of thought. According the Marx:

“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.”
[Theses on Feuerbach].

Further Reading: Marx’s essay on French Materialism & Communism in The Holy Family as well as the epoch-making outline in Chapter one of The German Ideology, Materialism and Idealism, and Lenin's concise explanation, and the definition of Materialist Dialectics. See also Hegel's definition in his critique of Empiricism. For help see: History of Materialism and Materialism and Idealism.


Matter

1. Philosophy: Denoting all that exists outside of and independently of thought – objective reality. As a philosophical category, “matter” must be distinguished from any particular theory of matter developed by natural science and from its meaning in physics as mass.

Further Reading: Hegel's comment on Kant's theory of matter and Hegel's criticism of the natural scientific confusion on this question.

 

[heusdens]

Oh I hate these definitions. There is no use to define X in terms of Y, if Y is not less controversial than X. What now? Define consciousness?

I know what you mean, but then how to define things in an absolute way? It is totally impossible! Everything is connected to each other, and everything is defined in terms of each other.

Recall that in physics this kind of thing also occurs, since spacetime and mass/energy for example are also interconnected.
For classical mechanics we had a separate notions of space and time and matter on the other hand. In relativistic physics, these notions are interconnected, you can not have spacetime without matter nor vice versa. They are dependend on each other and defined in terms of each other.

In terms of General Relavity we need to say that the motion of mass (celestial bodies) is caused by the gravity field, while at the same time the gravity field itself is caused by mass.
Now you may find that circular, but this is how in General Relativity things are.

 

[heusdens]

Some other thing about 'Objectivism'

One of it's doctrines are their so-called 'axioms' which are:
- "Existence exists" (which is rather a tautology)
- Law of Identity ("A=A")
- Consciousness

Acc. to 'Objectivism' it makes no special assumptions on what exists (wether matter, consciousness or something else) although it rejects any form of super-natural.

Objectivism has clearly not read into much prior philosophy, and it simply neglects the dialectics. As a 21-st century philosophy it is clearly not the most advanced form of thought, but is rather one-sided.

It's logic is purely abstract, and it therefore has much of a problem in reconciling itself with scientific truth.
For example, quantum mechanics has clearly revealed some truths about underlying nature, which Objectivism can not reconcile with, since it is bound to formal logic only.

And even special relativity poses problems, that do not fit with Objectivism.
Consider for example that wether or not event A happens before B are depends on the inertial rest frame of the observer, so in what way to tell wether or not event A happens before event B is an objective truth?

It's practical world view is that of a system (capitalism, incorporating only the individual right to property, and reducing the state to only protecting these individual rights) that has never existed in such a pure form, and can never exist in that manner.

For some more lengthy critics on Objectivism, see:
http://www.walden3.org/Capitalism%20Religion.htm

 

[heusdens]

baywax:

This is what one of your sources (http://www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/ ) define in their dictionary:

Bourgeoisie: a class of property owners as well as those who own the means of production; Marxists call for the elimination of the whole class. (the source of society's problems).

What Marxisms calls for is not the elimination of the bourgois class (how do you think that would have to take place: kill them all?) but for the abolition of private property (of the means of production)

That is clearly something different.

The end result would be that the class distinction is overcome, although it would not immediately end the class struggle.

And here another one:

Capitalism: an economic system based on the peaceful and free exchange of goods and services without fraud, theft and breech of contract; free market or economy.

It does not mention one important aspect of capitalism, namely the private ownership of the means of production
Without that, it is not capitalism. It is the defining concept for capitalism.

And here another one:

Communism: a religious worldview as outlined in ten categories (including theology, philosophy, biology, economics) in Understanding the Times. Its major dogma includes atheism, dialectical materialism, evolution and socialism.

I am really puzzled. Communism a religious worldview?
Outlined in ten categories (including theology)??
Understanding the Times??

Here is a link to dictionary that has something else to say about communism:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

Important notice: communism is not to be thought of as a state of affairs, as an ideal to which reality has to adjust itself, but as the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

 

[Hurkyl]

Otherwise it seems to claim that there is nothing that escapes the material.

I'm going by wikipedia's description, since I can't find any other... this claim is wrong. At the very least, objectivism asserts that consciousness cannot be reduced to material.

 

[Hurkyl]

I know what you mean, but then how to define things in an absolute way? It is totally impossible! Everything is connected to each other, and everything is defined in terms of each other.

I'm rather fond of the formalist solution: don't treat such definitions as if they were meaningful. Instead, write down a list of the statements you are going to presuppose are true, and stick to those. (in particular without resorting to introducing "obvious" or "self-evident" facts about the things you're discussing)

 

[whatta]

It's not about defining things "in absolute way", but rather about boiling dubious definitions down to something people agree about. from there, you can make a judgement (on "objectivism vs materialism" or whatever) that everybody will agree upon.

 

[baywax]

I'm going by wikipedia's description, since I can't find any other... this claim is wrong. At the very least, objectivism asserts that consciousness cannot be reduced to material.

Concsious awareness is a result of the material physiology of neurons. How much simpler can it get?

This has nothing to do with political or social ideologies. The implication is only that no conscious awareness exists without the material origin of the neuron and its physiological mechanisms. This has been proven by countless research grants funded by capitalists, communists and democracies over several decades. Where is the (legitimate) research that shows otherwise?

 

[heusdens]

I'm going by wikipedia's description, since I can't find any other... this claim is wrong. At the very least, objectivism asserts that consciousness cannot be reduced to material.

I doubt that that is what they claim. I have read that they are more or less undecided about it, and that it doesn't matter for their philosophical position to be true wether or not consciousness can be reduced to matter.

 

[heusdens]

Concsious awareness is a result of the material physiology of neurons. How much simpler can it get?

This has nothing to do with political or social ideologies. The implication is only that no conscious awareness exists without the material origin of the neuron and its physiological mechanisms. This has been proven by countless research grants funded by capitalists, communists and democracies over several decades. Where is the (legitimate) research that shows otherwise?

Great!

 

[heusdens]

It's not about defining things "in absolute way", but rather about boiling dubious definitions down to something people agree about. from there, you can make a judgement (on "objectivism vs materialism" or whatever) that everybody will agree upon.

You meant how matter is defined?

 

[Hurkyl]

I doubt that that is what they claim. I have read that they are more or less undecided about it, and that it doesn't matter for their philosophical position to be true wether or not consciousness can be reduced to matter.

Well, I'm going by this quote from Wikipedia

This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts, and it is pre-supposed by all knowledge.​

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, or maybe the wikipedia article is wrong. But this is all I have to go on.

 

[Hurkyl]

Concsious awareness is a result of the material physiology of neurons. How much simpler can it get?

This has nothing to do with political or social ideologies. The implication is only that no conscious awareness exists without the material origin of the neuron and its physiological mechanisms. This has been proven by countless research grants funded by capitalists, communists and democracies over several decades. Where is the (legitimate) research that shows otherwise?

Really? Then surely you can provide a reference to at least one?

I'm not aware of any experiment in which there would be an observational difference between, for example:

(1) Consciousness is a by-product of the interaction between neurons
(2) Human consciousness interacts with the material through neurons
(3) Neurons, and their relation to consciousness are a mental creation

 

[whatta]

Concsious awareness is a result of the material physiology of neurons.

Nice try, but the same way I could claim that logic of word processing application is a result of motherboard circuitry arrangement. There is a huge gap in your explanation (if that's what it is).

You meant how matter is defined?

I mean that Aristotle was quite right when he said that most of disputes would never take place if only people could agree on their terms first.

any experiment in which there would be an observational difference

Well, what is the difference? If you can't make such an experiment because you can't infer different predictions from 1-3 to be checked, then all options 1-3 are, in fact, the same, and you have to agree with baywax.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, what is the difference? If you can't make such an experiment because you can't infer different predictions from 1-3 to be checked, then all options 1-3 are, in fact, the same, and you have to agree with baywax.

Observational indistinguishability is not equality.

 

[whatta]

Observational indistinguishability is not equality.

And what is?

(edit: on the other thought, the rest of post removed because I am primarily interested in the answer for the above bit)

 

[heusdens]

Really? Then surely you can provide a reference to at least one?

I'm not aware of any experiment in which there would be an observational difference between, for example:

(1) Consciousness is a by-product of the interaction between neurons
(2) Human consciousness interacts with the material through neurons
(3) Neurons, and their relation to consciousness are a mental creation

I would go for option one, but then worded without the word by-product, since consciousness is nothing else but the interaction between neurons, in much the same way as the chemical processes occurring in my stomach and food digesting organs does not have a byproduct of digesting food, but IS the digesting of food.

 

[heusdens]

Well, I'm going by this quote from Wikipedia

This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts, and it is pre-supposed by all knowledge.​

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, or maybe the wikipedia article is wrong. But this is all I have to go on.

I have heard some Objectivists mention things to the contrary or at least less fixed as this, but it makes their position in any case not very consequent.
They argue AGAINST the position of Idealism, yet they do in nothing distinguish themselves from that position, if they hold onto this position.
And they are in contradiction when they claim elsewhere the Primacy of existence (existence is primary; consciousness secondary -- one has to exist and there need to be existents before one can be consciouss of something).
If existence is primary then consciousness can not be primary at the same time. Besides, existence is not uniquely defined to mean the material but also includes consciouss thought, and that also makes the position that states that existence is primary to consciousness something obfuscated and not exactly clear. In any way, one can still use Objectivism to arise at pure Idealistic points of view.

 

[baywax]

Really? Then surely you can provide a reference to at least one?

I'm not aware of any experiment in which there would be an observational difference between, for example:

(1) Consciousness is a by-product of the interaction between neurons
(2) Human consciousness interacts with the material through neurons
(3) Neurons, and their relation to consciousness are a mental creation

I'd put more time into my reply here but I'll let these references speak for me. I think you'll find the material basically explains what you are looking for.http://linus.media.unisi.it/cirg/contact/ip01.html

http://cogprints.org/43/00/perception2.html

http://www.mb.jhu.edu/niebur/media/nb120209.pdf

http://biomedicum.ut.ee/~andress/inglise/papers/morphofu.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

I disagree with number 3 completely and since it appears to be your idea you might want to back it up with references.

 

[baywax]

Nice try, but the same way I could claim that logic of word processing application is a result of motherboard circuitry arrangement. There is a huge gap in your explanation (if that's what it is)

Let me know when you have shown that conscious awareness occurs without the physiology and (obvious) interactions of neurons. Please browse through the links I left for Hurkyl. Thank you.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have heard some Objectivists mention things to the contrary or at least less fixed as this, but it makes their position in any case not very consequent.
They argue AGAINST the position of Idealism, yet they do in nothing distinguish themselves from that position, if they hold onto this position.

What about this passage?

The Primacy of Existence, otherwise known in philosophy as metaphysical realism, is the premise that says that reality is objective: that the universe exists independently of the mental states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual cognizers.​

That seems pretty strongly at odds with Idealism to me.

If existence is primary then consciousness can not be primary at the same time.

Why not? I see no reason why there can't be two kinds of "stuff", each of which cannot be reduced to the other.

Besides, existence is not uniquely defined to mean the material but also includes consciouss thought, and that also makes the position that states that existence is primary to consciousness something obfuscated and not exactly clear.

Honestly, I feel the same way about this entire field of philosophy. But it is clear, at least, that is not how the wikipedia article is using the term "existence".

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd put more time into my reply here but I'll let these references speak for me. I think you'll find the material basically explains what you are looking for.
...

I skimmed the abstracts/introductions, and saw nothing that contradicts my hypotheses #2 and #3. Could you point out a specific passage in the papers that does so?

I disagree with number 3 completely and since it appears to be your idea you might want to back it up with references.

I think you forgot what we were arguing here. Allow me to remind you:

#16 heusdens and I are discussing the basic position of Objectivism, and I state (my reading of) the Objectivist position on consciousness.

#19 You jump in with "Concsious awareness is a result of the material physiology of neurons. How much simpler can it get? ... This has been proven by countless research grants", which I presume was meant as an argument against the Objectivist position.

#24 I ask you to clarify how your statement has been proven -- in particular, what in the scientific research actually contradicts the Objectivist position. (roughly my hypothesis #2) I figured I'd throw in the Idealist/Solipsist position (my hypothesis #3) partly for dramatic effect, and partly because I think it will help elucidate the problem with your assertion.


In summary, you have denied the Objectivist position (and also the Idealist and Solipsist position), so you have a burden to prove your point. I'm not going to let you shift it to me.

 

[arildno]

We are still a LONG, long way from having established a strict bijection between objectively observable phenomena and noumena (i.e thoughts and other phenomena of consciousness).

Even if that bijection were to be established, it doesn't at all follow that conscious phenomena are strictly reducible to material ones.

In order to do that, we really should understand the conditions for producibility of consciousness, and be able to get results to show to others (say, a musing rose-bush)

 

[baywax]

In summary, you have denied the Objectivist position (and also the Idealist and Solipsist position), so you have a burden to prove your point. I'm not going to let you shift it to me.

I've changed my tact and can't disagree with this;

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

 

[heusdens]

Why not? I see no reason why there can't be two kinds of "stuff", each of which cannot be reduced to the other.

1. This contradicts the metaphysical point of view of the Primacy of existence (over consciousness).

2. It doesn't explain what causes consciousness. How did consciousness get here?

3. The "two kinds of stuff" idea is not very sound. Suppose a particle theorists comes up with a totally new kind of matter, consisting of all different kind of particles, but without any known interaction with ordinary matter. There would be no way (even theoretically) to know about this stuff, and therefore no reason to propose it's existence in the first place.
(same like the invisible/undetectable elf in my backyard)

4. The fact that consciousness exists, already means that it interacts with the material world, and therefore must be (ultimately) material itself.

5. Also look at it this way: it is matter that defines space. You can not say that space itself is also something. This is a dualistic approach.

6. Scientific facts: there was a material world before there was consciousness, before there were even living organism. The fact that now consciousness exist must mean therefore: it originated in the material.

7. All known forms of consciousness are in principle detectable at the basis of material phenomena. The assumption (and to a large extent proven) is that nothing escapes the material.

8. There isn't any doubt one needs to have that in light of current scientific understanding consciousness can be satisfactory explained in terms of matter.

 

[heusdens]

We are still a LONG, long way from having established a strict bijection between objectively observable phenomena and noumena (i.e thoughts and other phenomena of consciousness).

Even if that bijection were to be established, it doesn't at all follow that conscious phenomena are strictly reducible to material ones.

In order to do that, we really should understand the conditions for producibility of consciousness, and be able to get results to show to others (say, a musing rose-bush)

How does that in any way make it arguable that any phenomena within consciousness could not be based on material?

Are there thoughts or feelings or whatever phenomena of consciousness that does not require a material brain state?

Please proof it.

 

[whatta]

Let me know when you have shown that conscious awareness occurs without the physiology and (obvious) interactions of neurons. Please browse through the links I left for Hurkyl. Thank you.

I happened to be "true ai is possible" believer, so when it happens, you will know. Unless you'll die before.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

That is correct, but does that mean that consciousness could have aspects that are not entirely material?

Even if we don't entirely know how consciouss works, is there any indication it is not material?

This is very hand waving, and very cut down to bare bones, but I was thinking one day that a personality (awareness, consciousness) is like a song, whereas the brain is like a piano. The piano is material, it came from physical things, but the song, where do songs come from? Of course all aspects of the song are describable by the use of the piano, but the piano doesn't make the song all by itself, a composer must make it (in my perspetive, God is the composer).

 

[heusdens]

This is very hand waving, and very cut down to bare bones, but I was thinking one day that a personality (awareness, consciousness) is like a song, whereas the brain is like a piano. The piano is material, it came from physical things, but the song, where do songs come from? Of course all aspects of the song are describable by the use of the piano, but the piano doesn't make the song all by itself, a composer must make it (in my perspetive, God is the composer).

I never happened to hear any song composed by God, or is He the uncredited and ultimare author of every song?

In one sense you are right. When describing reality, we need other descriptions then basic material reality. That is of course the reason why there are different scientific disciplines in the first place, since otherwise all we should ever have to learn is physics and mathematics, and every other discipline could be reduced to it.

In reality there are things which can not be simply reduced to matter in motion. For example to describe a thing like a school or education system or institute, the approach that would see that as material entities in the form of buildings and chairs and tables and persons, is far from adequate, because although those necessary belong to a school or education system for their proper functioning, they are not in anyway essential to them.
Since the process that is essential the the school or education system is the achievement of acquiring knowledge.

Materialists by the way are not such reductionists, since to a materialist a school system, a society and a state are just as real and as material as an atom. It requires one to perceive of reality in the form of processes and not just material entities on themselves, since basically to understand what for instance a school or education system is, you don't achieve anything by studying the material components of the stones of the school building or the molecules that make up the chairs and tables, books and pencils used in the education system.

If that is what you are trying to explain, then I can agree on that.
But it doesn't involve any entity as God to explain it, just a higher abstraction on material reality.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So, you mean that songs are composed by material things, not a mind? Songs come from the imagination, is that a material thing? The "place" where the mind works isn't material, it's a place beyond time and space is it not? You can imagine anything you want, so nothing limits your imagination (certainly not time, space, or energy), therefore, the "place" where your mind does its thinking/conceptualizing is not material--one can't find your imagination at work in space-time. When you think of an apple, that apple doesn't exist in space-time somewhere, so it must be somewhere else, call it "thought space", thought space is where your mind is, thought space is imagination, this is where songs are conceived. Songs don't simply write themselves based on interactions in the material world, they're composed by an awareness.

 

[heusdens]

So, you mean that songs are composed by material things, not a mind? Songs come from the imagination, is that a material thing? The "place" where the mind works isn't material, it's a place beyond time and space is it not? You can imagine anything you want, so nothing limits your imagination (certainly not time, space, or energy), therefore, the "place" where your mind does its thinking/conceptualizing is not material--one can't find your imagination at work in space-time. When you think of an apple, that apple doesn't exist in space-time somewhere, so it must be somewhere else, call it "thought space", thought space is where your mind is, thought space is imagination, this is where songs are conceived. Songs don't simply write themselves based on interactions in the material world, they're composed by an awareness.

How the mind works and what it based at are fundamentally material processes.

Different processes, but also material is the processing capacity of your PC's CPU.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

There is a difference between processing capacity and what is being processed. A program is different than the cpu that it commands. Programs aren't created by the cpu, they're created by an awareness.

 

[whatta]

I was just sayin that, Jonny.

 

[heusdens]

There is a difference between processing capacity and what is being processed. A program is different than the cpu that it commands. Programs aren't created by the cpu, they're created by an awareness.

Our mental capacity enables us to program ourself. It is called 'learning' / 'experience'.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

There are such things as programs that can "learn" new things, they do so by genetic algorithms among other means. Check out some of the aspects of AI. Nevertheless, AI programs were programmed by a mind/awareness/consciousness. One day AI will get so powerful (due to more sophisitcated hardware) that it might become human competitive; but still, all its aspects would still have been concieved by our minds, so they are just an extension of ourselves, an image if you will. You still have the same problem though, the ideas used to render AI real came from our minds, they didn't just will themselves into existence. Software doesn't write itself, and processing capacity really only let's larger programs run--it doesn't compose songs, write novels, paint paintings, or fall in love.

 

[heusdens]

There are such things as programs that can "learn" new things, they do so by genetic algorithms among other means. Check out some of the aspects of AI. Nevertheless, AI programs were programmed by a mind/awareness/consciousness. One day AI will get so powerful (due to more sophisitcated hardware) that it might become human competitive; but still, all its aspects would still have been concieved by our minds, so they are just an extension of ourselves, an image if you will. You still have the same problem though, the ideas used to render AI real came from our minds, they didn't just will themselves into existence. Software doesn't write itself, and processing capacity really only let's larger programs run--it doesn't compose songs, write novels, paint paintings, or fall in love.

I know where your ideas are heading to, but you are wrong:

For the mind there was no designer, and it is just absurd to put forward the idea that the mind must have been designed by an even more complex intelligent mind, since this begs the question: who designed that mind? and so on.

Materialism tries to explain complexity in terms of lesser complex things, not the other way around, since that does not solve the issue, but makes the issue worse.

(It is like teaching someone the basic concepts of simple math, but then using complex differientals to explain it - which already requires one to have the basic concepts of simple math).

And btw. the mind is not really sofware, a neural network would be a better description.

Like computer networks are modeled on several layers of abstraction (application, presentation, session, transportation, network, datalink, physical) in similar terms the mind operates.

Each layer of abstraction has significance, but one has to take in mind, they built and operate on deeper layers, and ultimately they are built on the physical layer.

{Note: I am not stating that there is anything similar between computer networks and the mind, I just used it as an analogy of how one uses several layers of abstraction to built complex functions}

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I know where your ideas are heading to, but you are wrong:

For the mind there was no designer, and it is just absurd to put forward the idea that the mind must have been designed by an even more complex intelligent mind, since this begs the question: who designed that mind? and so on.

Materialism tries to explain complexity in terms of lesser complex things, not the other way around, since that does not solve the issue, but makes the issue worse.

(It is like teaching someone the basic concepts of simple math, but then using complex differientals to explain it - which already requires one to have the basic concepts of simple math).

And btw. the mind is not really sofware, a neural network would be a better description.

Like computer networks are modeled on several layers of abstraction (application, presentation, session, transportation, network, datalink, physical) in similar terms the mind operates.

Each layer of abstraction has significance, but one has to take in mind, they built and operate on deeper layers, and ultimately they are built on the physical layer.

{Note: I am not stating that there is anything similar between computer networks and the mind, I just used it as an analogy of how one uses several layers of abstraction to built complex functions}

I may have implied that our minds were designed, but more specifically, the attribute that gives our minds their essence is like a "shared" essence of God (in my perspective). It's not a problem for me to postulate that God is the source of consciousness, in other words, he is consciousness--he is the imagination, the space where thought occurs, because all possible thoughts compose thought space and God is always aware of all possible thoughts--and our minds are just images of his essence, but we must "travel" through the imagination and not see it all at once since our minds are finite but God's isn't. That "place" is as real as the physical world to us. For all we know the physical world could just be a thought within the imagination, as you may agree. So, where did the imagination come from? What if I said it's always been there, and it had no designer? I don't know, but I do know it's there because my mind can perceive it. As far as what my mind is, I have no clue, but it has the ability to perceive things in the imagination--not material--so if I make a song, that's where it comes from, the imagination--something non physical. If we make artificially intelligent beings with all the aspects we have in this respect, there still is no problem. We can implement as many ways as we like to achieve that goal, but let's recognize that in our efforts we're sentient beings, and anything we do is done while aware of non-material influences. Whatever we call the mind, it's an analogy, so call it whatever you want, but the brain is something that we can observe, so we can call it a neural network, or an electro-chemical dynamical system or whatever.

 

[heusdens]

I may have implied that our minds were designed, but more specifically, the attribute that gives our minds their essence is like a "shared" essence of God (in my perspective). It's not a problem for me to postulate that God is the source of consciousness, in other words, he is consciousness--he is the imagination, the space where thought occurs, because all possible thoughts compose thought space and God is always aware of all possible thoughts--and our minds are just images of his essence, but we must "travel" through the imagination and not see it all at once since our minds are finite but God's isn't. That "place" is as real as the physical world to us. For all we know the physical world could just be a thought within the imagination, as you may agree. So, where did the imagination come from? What if I said it's always been there, and it had no designer? I don't know, but I do know it's there because my mind can perceive it. As far as what my mind is, I have no clue, but it has the ability to perceive things in the imagination--not material--so if I make a song, that's where it comes from, the imagination--something non physical. If we make artificially intelligent beings with all the aspects we have in this respect, there still is no problem. We can implement as many ways as we like to achieve that goal, but let's recognize that in our efforts we're sentient beings, and anything we do is done while aware of non-material influences. Whatever we call the mind, it's an analogy, so call it whatever you want, but the brain is something that we can observe, so we can call it a neural network, or an electro-chemical dynamical system or whatever.

Your metaphysical position is that of Idealism (consciousness is primary).

It's an explenation which explains nothing.

Scientific explenations can not be grounded on this position.

Consciousness can not exist on itself, without a material reality. It isn't primary.

(and ask yourself: of what can consciousness be consciouss, of there was no objective material reality?)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I'm offering my subjective perception of these topics, you're offering yours. You can't comprehend mine and I don't expect you to because you aren't me. The absolute truth of reality may be different than what either of us think. The objective truth between us is that we think differently and make different assumptions.

I understand that you think idealism explains nothing, but objective truth can't make such a statement because your position can't be proven objectively. If it could be, we wouldn't have this debate because we would know what is true and what isn't. Since we can't know what is the objective truth in this situation, both of our positions aren't scientific, since science won't make claims about things that are unfalsifiable. You're just saying the same thing over and over in the expectation that you'll get a different response: "consciousness must be a property of material things". I'm trying to offer you another way of looking at it, that's all, I'm not claiming it as objective truth. You must understand that these concepts can't be proven objectively, so all we can do is look at them in different ways, which operate on different unfalsifiable claims.