News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This kind of behavior seems to me dangerously close to trolling and trying to start a flame war.

I don't think so. First of all, I am at a site where materialism, in one form or another, outnumbers all other philosophies. I don't think I am going to "flame" the majority! If anyone is risking being flamed, it is me. And, by the way, I have taken it many times here at PF for trying to argue the exact point of this thread.

To me, it is an act of courage to take on the prevailing view . . . not an attempt to stir up trouble. I say that because of how I've debated. I've gotten mad, but I have not resorted to insults, mudslinging, emotional arguments, or any other of the tactics people use when they just want to flame. I have debated with evidence and logic, and I challenge you to show where I departed significantly from that approach.

You are just "inflamed" that someone has a some degree of ability to challenge what some materialists are doing. And that is catching them at presenting themselves as objective when really they've already decided what the "truth" is and are putting every bit of spin they can on every discovery and fact to make it look like there is no other evidence but material evidence. At least I admit I am still trying to figure it out.

 

[FZ+]

So I ask it again: How can there be established philosophical views that claim that non-material things do exists if there is no way for them to make this distinction? Just so we're clear, I'm claiming that there IS an established distinction in academia. Not sure if you were disagreeing with that either.

Okay, I think we are approaching the crux of the matter. IMHO, a core materialist creed is that there is no real, significant distinction. To say a non-material entity exists is to say either a logical fallacy, or to imply that the non-material is also material. If you try to make a distinction, you inevitable lead to arbitary decisions.

Consciousness, if it exists, is either an undiscovered physical principle (atoms of consciousness, perhaps), misinterpreted existing physical principle (as proposed by Dennett et al), or it doesn't exist.

It sounds like you are admiting that your definition is not consistent with academia but I can't be sure.

Sort of. I am (ever so slightly) arrogantly claiming that my definition is better than theirs because their definitions are made to attempt the impossible - to turn materialism into something that is empirically verifiable.

So in the end they come up with a definition that is either vague (sufficiently to be interpreted as my definition), or is just plain wrong. IMHO, if the materialist accepts a material-nonmaterial distinction, then he cannot be a materialist as this would undermine the reason WHY a materialist believes existence is purely material - with the admission of a conceptual non-material entity, there is no reason or value to maintain the materialist assumptions.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I complained about the title of this thread in my first post.

Yes you did. But since Socrates is one of my role models, I decided to be that fly on the horse's ass.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think Royce accepted my definition of the term “idealist” in another thread. That definition was someone who places primacy of consciousness over matter (perhaps I am mistaken, Royce?). This is the demarcation point I accept as suitable for distinguishing idealists from materialists, and it doesn’t matter to me that there are a myriad of sub classifications that follow under each category. This is simply “the line”, if you will, that I prefer to use.

Well, I thought you guys were referring to the formal definition of idealism. In that definition, idealism is the belief that (relying a philosophy source book) ". . . what is real is in someway confined to or at least related to the contents of our own minds."

Lifegazer was a true and, to be sure, radical idealist claiming each individual's mind was the only reality that exists. The universe, he was heard to say, was a shared dream by all the minds that live there. There is no "external" reality, only an internal one.

To believe that consciousness (and not necessarily any variety of consciousness we are familiar with) might have played a role in the shaping of the universe doen't make one an idealist, especially if one can demonstrate that including consciousness in a creation model helps explain things and is practical.

String theory is just such an inclusion. Utterly unsupported by evidence, it nonetheless (if true) explains so much it has attracted lots of supporters. Now, if those strings had to be conscious to fuctions so effectively, what do you think would happen to all the materialist string theorists?

I say, there is an almost absolute resistance (by scientism devotees) to allowing anything non-mechanical into models for fear one might have to acknowledge the practical value of including consciousness as part of creation's development.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
There seems to be no general agreement between our members as to definitions and so arguing in this thread isn’t likely to be productive, which is why I shall more often be found in the Masturbation thread (where everyone understands each other, haha).

Well, that is why I offered to start a new thread, and if I do I will define things more clearly up front. As to whether or not the masterbation thread is more productive, I'll leave that decision in your capable hand . . . er, hands.

 

[Royce]

BH,
Yes, I did accept you definition of idealism as a good working if not classical definition. By any or either definition I am not an idealist; and I think idealism has as many problems as materialism. 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. Thus life has become abiogenesis. Energy in any form has become equivelant to matter. Consciousness has become an emergent phenomena of increasing material complexity. Thermodynamics has been redifined from what I learned in high school and college as has the word entropy. Thought or mind is the result of a physical process. The non-material cannot interact with the material by edict and definition not evidence nor observation. I liken it to playing a game with my grandson who begins changing the rules as soon as he sees he is losing.
The ground on which I stand may be shaky but I still stand on it not wiggle and squirm trying to make it fit better.
I think that both Les and I, whenever thing get a bit dull and too quite around here, enjoy a little materialist baiting now and then. Nothing like it to got the blood flowing and the dander up and it is alway sure to get a number of heated responses. Just look at this thread. One little taunting statement and its already 17 pages long and still going strong with spin offs in the offering. God! I love it! Its better and easier than picking an argument with my wife.

 

[Fliption]

God I'm gettig dizzy going in these same circles.

Originally posted by FZ+
Okay, I think we are approaching the crux of the matter. IMHO, a core materialist creed is that there is no real, significant distinction. To say a non-material entity exists is to say either a logical fallacy, or to imply that the non-material is also material. If you try to make a distinction, you inevitable lead to arbitary decisions.

Thanks again for simply restating my point. Your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view which is not consistent with established philosophy. We're not debating reality here FZ. All we're doing is assigning meaning to words. The words material and non-material are meant to try to make a distinction between peoples views. There is no doubt that people have differing views on this. The words you are using are useless for the purposes of making this distinction. This is what words are for. Making distinctions. Not to make truth statements.

Consciousness, if it exists, is either an undiscovered physical principle (atoms of consciousness, perhaps), misinterpreted existing physical principle (as proposed by Dennett et al), or it doesn't exist.

By your definition this is true. You're simply restating my point yet again. But this makes the word materialism meaningless and useless in language.

Material MUST be distinguishable from non-material in it's definition or there is no need for the word material or materialism.

Sort of. I am (ever so slightly) arrogantly claiming that my definition is better than theirs because their definitions are made to attempt the impossible - to turn materialism into something that is empirically verifiable.

They are attempting to make materialism emprirically verifiable? Which definition of materialism are they trying to make verifiable? Don't you see the circularity of your view? In order to accept the academic definition you have to drop your definition entirely. Obviously 2 different definitions aren't going to be logically consistent with one another.

So in the end they come up with a definition that is either vague (sufficiently to be interpreted as my definition), or is just plain wrong.

Only truth statements can be inherently wrong. Definitions cannot be inherently wrong. Definitions of words are what they have been established to be. The only way they are wrong is if you are using them in a way that is inconsistent with the way everyone else is using them. And that's what you're doing. Definitions can change if the established use of the word changes. Definitions are for communication; not truth.

IMHO, if the materialist accepts a material-nonmaterial distinction, then he cannot be a materialist as this would undermine the reason WHY a materialist believes existence is purely material - with the admission of a conceptual non-material entity, there is no reason or value to maintain the materialist assumptions. [/B]

Once again you are explaining what is wrong with definition B because it is inconsistent with Definition A. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You have to drop your defintion entirely. If you chose not to do that then you'll just have to drop the entire concept because it is meaningless. Either way, I don't see how you can keep this word with this definition.

 

[FZ+]

Your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view which is not consistent with established philosophy.

Uh... Double negative? Wha?

The words material and non-material are meant to try to make a distinction between peoples views. There is no doubt that people have differing views on this. The words you are using are useless for the purposes of making this distinction. This is what words are for. Making distinctions. Not to make truth statements.

Material MUST be distinguishable from non-material in it's definition or there is no need for the word material or materialism.

What I am saying is that materialism denies that distinction, or at least says that distinction is meaningless - one is an arbitary part of the other.

Let's try analogies again. Suppose we have a bunch of fruit. Some are apples, some are oranges. The "fruitist" (the materialist in this case) considers the whole lot to be just a bunch of fruit - whether or not it is an apple, or an orange doesn't matter, and is just meaningless words. Or perhaps even that oranges are just a type of apple. He does not say that oranges don't exist. The dualist says that apples and oranges are distinct and exist distinctly, and that the fruitist are wrong to think they have anything in common on a significant, non-fudged level. Thus the dualist, whilst accepting the description of what the fruitist/materialist believes, find a fully reasonable system to oppose it. There may be other systems.

When a materialist talks of material, he really means all that exists. If materialists get their way, there would indeed be no need to use the worlds material or non-material - saying that something IS is good enough.

Which definition of materialism are they trying to make verifiable?

Any of them. When they talk about "conceptual circularity", they are essential trying to justify, or unjustify that which has nothing to do with justification.

The only way they are wrong is if you are using them in a way that is inconsistent with the way everyone else is using them. And that's what you're doing.

Is it? I propose that they are inconsistent with the real thoughts of most materialists. If they try to find a concrete distinction, they render such things as "scientific materialism" essential oxymoronic. IMHO, materialism with acceptance of a material/non-material distinction must contradict itself.

You cannot draw a dividing line without generating the existence of another side. To fundamentally disallow the other side, materialists must disallow the line.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
IYou are just "inflamed" that someone has a some degree of ability to challenge what some materialists are doing.

Pooh. Crummy ad hominem chep shot.

And your pompous self justification (which I zapped) doesn't.

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. That directed arrow points to the in vitro creation of life.

What does the other side show? People's opinions, squabbles over definitions that just show the ideas aren't well defined, and NO PROGRESS.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Uh... Double negative? Wha?

Eh? Where?

Let's try analogies again. Suppose we have a bunch of fruit. Some are apples, some are oranges. The "fruitist" (the materialist in this case) considers the whole lot to be just a bunch of fruit - whether or not it is an apple, or an orange doesn't matter, and is just meaningless words. Or perhaps even that oranges are just a type of apple. He does not say that oranges don't exist. The dualist says that apples and oranges are distinct and exist distinctly, and that the fruitist are wrong to think they have anything in common on a significant, non-fudged level. Thus the dualist, whilst accepting the description of what the fruitist/materialist believes, find a fully reasonable system to oppose it. There may be other systems.

You keep explaining you're definition when I understand it perfectly. What I'm telling you is that it isn't the established definition in philosophy. Again, I'm not trying to change you're belief system. I'm just saying you need a new word to describe it.

Also, the analogy is misleading because, totally separate from the orange versus apple discussion, fruit can be distinguished from non- fruit. Your definition of materialism cannot be distinguished from anything. It is a useless term.

Is it? I propose that they are inconsistent with the real thoughts of most materialists.

But they ARE the materialists. It is the established philosophical definitions that you're talking about. 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.

If they try to find a concrete distinction, they render such things as "scientific materialism" essential oxymoronic. IMHO, materialism with acceptance of a material/non-material distinction must contradict itself.

I think I may have mentioned earlier in the thread that the word material from a scientific perspective has a different meaning than the philosophical definition. This causes much confusion as this discussion is showing. Why this never seems to sink in I haven't figured out.

You cannot draw a dividing line without generating the existence of another side. To fundamentally disallow the other side, materialists must disallow the line. [/B]

I just don't get this at all. You are fusing the topics of communication and semantics with those of truth. This is just bad philosophy. Just because we have a word and a definition for god means that god exists? I don't get it.

 

[Fliption]

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, and NO PROGRESS. [/B]

Since I'm involved in a discussion about semantics then I'm going to assume this comment is partly directed at me. First of all I'll be clear and say that I have not claimed any "side". My whole point is that I get frustrated when I see people debating over whether something is true or not when no one even knows how to define what that something is. I can't even figure out what the materialism debate is all about because I don't have a clue what makes the 2 views different. No one has been able to clarify it either. When called upon to give definitions, I usually get this unusable definition that simply means there is no other view. Which is mighty convenient to say the least. FZ even admits that the term materialism is useless. Yet it is being used and debated constantly. Given this, how can anyone deny that confusion exists with this term? And if he admits that there is confucion, it isn't surprising that it is "everyone else" that is confused.

If I were in charge here I would not allow any more threads on materialism until everyone is clear on what it means.

As to abiogensis, Les has also not claimed any side as truth either. His main point in this thread is that we do not have enough evidence to justify the certainty shown by many posting here. So there is no progress that needs to be shown. Let's read carefully.

 

[Canute]

I don't understand some of the criticism of idealism here. Most philosophers up to the beginning of the 20th century were idealist, and many still are. Outside of academaia virtually all of them are.

The reason this for this is not that they were or are stupid. Idealism is a perfectly defensible position, with no inbuilt logical contradicitions and no evidence against it.

That doesn't make idealism true of course. What makes it likely to be true is the illogic of all views based on the idea that only physical things exists. This hypothesis works well at an everyday classical level and even, just about, at a quantum level. However any deeper philosophical analysis shows up paradoxes and self-contradictions. As it is philsophers rather than scientists who explore the depths of these issues, now that scientists have given up doing metaphysics, it is philosophers who tend to be idealists rather than scientists. Idealism flourishes among philosophers not because they don't know the evidence as well as scientists, but because they know it better.

As to whether the immaterial exists it is generally accepted that consciousness has no extension. Thus if consciousness exists then the immaterial exists. If not then we don't know.

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[Loren Booda]

How does the original post's biological model account for the living/nonliving interface, and how one assimilates the other?

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Royce]

And, thank God or who-whatever. Amen! or Right on, Les!

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[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.

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[Canute]

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)

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[Fliption]

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.

 

[Canute]

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?

 

[Canute]

Royce

None of my business but I think Fliptions right. Your definition of 'material' would be very confusing if people started using it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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."

 

[Fliption]

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.

 

[Fliption]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[Fliption]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Canute]

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.