News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

[Royce]

I have said these things before in other threads.
Matter, material is an effect not a cause, whether you believe in God, the Big Bang or both. In my opinion materialist are looking at reality from the wrong end. They start from the material and try to see reality as a result of matter. It is, in my mind the other way around. By the way while atoms are composed of particles, fields ,waves, quarks, strings etc, matter as an organized identifiable reality begins at the atomic levels. this is where we can identify an atom as an element not a collection of generic bits and pieces.
One of my problems with materialism is reducitionism. Reducing everything to its common components loses it unigueness. It is no long identefiable as the thing that you were studing in the first place, again basically Platoism vs Aristotlism.

 

[Canute]

Reductionism is ok as long as it's honest. Things do after all reduce.

But by reduction matter is nothing. It can't be anything else. What does this mean? It means that the non-dual explanation of existence is correct. In this case reality is one thing. In which case all reductionist regressions end in something that can only be understood holistically.

You arrive at the same destination whether you look at the world holistically or by infinite reduction. What doesn't work is partial reduction, which is what supporters of materialism usually practice.

 

[FZ+]

Why philosophy texts are full of this topic is only a clue that perhaps your understanding is not consistent with others.

Maths is based on axioms. But there are maths textbooks. To say whether maths is true, or false is rather pointless, though number theory etc investigates how the whole thing walks at the lower levels.

Materialism is like maths, to an extent. We cannot determine if it represents a fundamental truth, or if it is just a convenient way to think of things. The latter is what it is, at a minimum - certainly no one can deny the effectiveness of materialism in terms of consistency and so on, right?

Of course there are other aspects to materiality besides atoms, and I haven't "denied" that any of them exist. But atoms -- how they interact, radiate, change under pressure and/or heat, etc. -- by far surpass anything else in determining the substance and physical potentials for the universe.

You can apply that sort of thinking to anything. How about quarks? Or strings? Or gauge bosons?

What I'm sort of trying to get a handle on is what you see the divide between material and immaterial as being.

It just seems to me that it is impossible for someone to objectively seek the truth, or argue objectively in a debate, if they accept a belief before they know for certain it is true.

It is impossible to argue about anything without accepting what our eyes, hands etc tell us is to some degree the truth. It is impossible for us to justify this belief.

What I am hypothesising materialism to be is simply an eye, from which to look at the world, a world which we assume is the same one, sensed by any of our other senses. The eye may not be true or false, it just presents a particular picture of the world.

 

[Royce]

Reductionism is okay as long as we use it as a tool and not an end; and, if we never lose sight of what we are reducing to better understand it.
As an example: The perverbial forest is made up of, among other things, trees. Trees are made up of cells. Cells are made up of molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles which may be made up of quarks, fields, strings etc.
We don't know and as of now can only speculate, guess and make inadequate models that explain nothing in themselves. Matter does not really exist as we use to think of it.
Meanwhile as I enjoy a walk in the woods, I know that the woods and I exist and are part of a greater whole. My spirit is lifted and sometimes in awe of the beauty and wonder of the forest. I am in harmony with nature and my mind is at ease and for the moment free of worries or cares. It is the forest not the quarks or field of which it may or may not be made that has value and meaning whether intrinsic or assigned.
The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.

 

[BoulderHead]

Matter does not really exist as we use to think of it.

I certainly agree with this.

Meanwhile as I enjoy a walk in the woods, I know that the woods and I exist and are part of a greater whole.

I don’t understand the assumption of a greater whole. Greater in what respect?

My spirit is lifted and sometimes in awe of the beauty and wonder of the forest. I am in harmony with nature and my mind is at ease and for the moment free of worries or cares. It is the forest not the quarks or field of which it may or may not be made that has value and meaning whether intrinsic or assigned.

I feel the same way.

The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.

If you apply this way of thinking to the death of the human body what do you suppose you’ll get?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maths is based on axioms. But there are maths textbooks. To say whether maths is true, or false is rather pointless, though number theory etc investigates how the whole thing walks at the lower levels.

What I'm trying to communicate to you is that the way you are using the word "materialism" is not consistent with any academic use that I am aware of. For if you accept these acedemic definitions then materialism is nothing like math. Math is not a "view" of anything. Math does not have an opposing view. Materialism is a view of reality that falls under the the topic of philosophy. There are other philosophical views that disagree with materialism. No one here is denouncing math and recommending non-math.

The latter is what it is, at a minimum - certainly no one can deny the effectiveness of materialism in terms of consistency and so on, right?

Materialism is simply a view of how reality might be. It is not effective in any way if you understand what it means. But I am not really here to tell you this as much as I am trying to point out that there are textbooks filled with opposing views of materialism and yet your definition doesn't allow for an opposing view by definition. So how can these two things be? I'm suggesting that your definition is not accurate. I'm not looking for you to defend materialism. That's another topic. I'm just pointing out the two inconsistent facts above and asking for a reconciliation. How is it possible for materialism to be defined as everything that exists and yet there are still philosophers who hold a view that isn't materialistic? Why would anyone except this definition of materialism and then say they are not a materialists? They would be admitting that they believe in things that do not exists. Surely centuries of texts are not written to waste paper debating such an issue. Surely your definition is wrong.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

I don’t understand the assumption of a greater whole. Greater in what respect?

At the very least, without going into metaphysics, the greater whole would be the Earth and ultimately the universe. going into spiritualism, the greater whole would be all the above within the ultimate reality of the One, God.

If you apply this way of thinking to the death of the human body what do you suppose you’ll get?

The soul or spirit that is nonmaterial, eternal.

 

[BoulderHead]

The soul or spirit that is nonmaterial, eternal.

Well, I don’t know your grounds for believing this, but from your statement;

The forest is for the moment my reality as is my mind, body and spirit within me, within the forest. This wholeness can not be reduced by any means without losing all that the experience is and means. It is a whole, an entire concept, that can only be known and appreciated in it's entirety.

It would seem to me that all which is human experience will then be lost, along with any assigned meaning. This sounds like many materialist assertions.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, It would seem to me that all which is human experience will then be lost, along with any assigned meaning. This sounds like many materialist assertions.

Nothing of value is lost. All that is lost with the death of the human body is the material part of us; and, as I have said before, the material is the illusion not the ultimate reality from which all else springs. All that has value and meaning is carried along with our soul or spirit. All that we have learned and experienced is already part of our reality and cannot and will not be lost but are a part of us forever.
I do not want to subvert this thread, which I have been following with interest and ,as now, occasionally make a few comments which some may or may not find relevant or agree with. It also annoys a few, which is not all bad.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
I do not want to subvert this thread, which I have been following with interest and ,as now, occasionally make a few comments which some may or may not find relevant or agree with. It also annoys a few, which is not all bad.

Alright, as I see definitions still seem to be the subject, whereas what you are talking about is something entirely different.

 

[Royce]

I am trying to show that there is more to reality than material, matter. That there is the mental realm of the mind and the spiritual realm of reality, the soul.
That there is more to life than chemistry. That by reducing life, or anything else for that matter, to its simplest form we lose sight of what we are studying or talking about, life not chemistry. Yes life uses chemistry but that does not mean that life is simply chemistry.
I use a computer and I use food but I am neither a computer nor food much less chemistry. I operate with the laws of physics also that does not make me either a physicist or an quark.
That reductionism is as invalid and shortsighted as an end as is materialism.
In the light of relativity, QM and QED materialism does not stand up.
If matter is the result of energy fields and waves how then can matter be the source of anything? How can anyone say that all is physical matter or the product of physical matter when physical matter is the result of, or product of energy, waves or fields?
Is life energy? I would say absolutely. Life is some form of energy that we have yet to define as is consciousness. Does that make me an energyist vs materialist?

 

[BoulderHead]

To be honest, I draw more of a distinction between Physicalism and materialism than I see going on here. What I also see happening is you criticizing one metaphysical hypothesis for your own, with an assumption made that yours is correct, and that is my beef.

 

[Royce]

I do not know what physicalism is nor the difference between physcialism and materialism.
We are, or where, debating or discussing materialism and more specifically abiogenesis.
Why do you and others get annoyed when I, and others, criticize materialism and its assumptions. That is what debate and or discussion is. Of course I tout my viewpoint and minimize my assumptions just as other tout their viewpoints and minimize their assumption. If we all agreed on everything there would be no point to this or any other forum other than a mutual admiration society.
I could of course continue to put in "IMO" and "IMHO" but by now I thought that this was understood and a given. That is after all what all of us are doing is giving our opinions.
Possibly you think that I am butting in and intruding on a discussion of which I am not a participant and not wanted with opinions that are not relevant; but then that would be your opinion wouldn't it?
Maybe its because I'm right and you can't think of any way to counter my arguments. That always annoys me too.

 

[BoulderHead]

Why do you and others get annoyed when I, and others, criticize materialism and its assumptions.

I already explained what bothers me and it isn’t, as you say, criticism of materialism and its assumptions. It is accepting your own assumptions as if they were a given while criticizing the assumptions of the materialists. You speak of God, spirit, and soul, then turn around and blast materialism for basically amounting to a belief system (as if yours wasn’t).

I could of course continue to put in "IMO" and "IMHO" but by now I thought that this was understood and a given. That is after all what all of us are doing is giving our opinions.

I am actually not as opposed to many of the things spoken against ‘materialism’ (whatever that means) as you might think, but if materialism cannot produce strong enough evidence of life coming solely via chemistry than likewise neither can you produce evidence of spirit, soul, or God. As I said, that is my beef.

Possibly you think that I am butting in and intruding on a discussion of which I am not a participant and not wanted with opinions that are not relevant; but then that would be your opinion wouldn't it?

No, I think you have made contributions, even a good number I find favorable to my own way of thinking.

Maybe its because I'm right and you can't think of any way to counter my arguments. That always annoys me too.

Well, if you’d really like to be blasted you should know I’ll be happy to oblige, haha
But then you might begin talking like this again;

I do not want to subvert this thread…

Which was my reason for not attacking more forcefully, not because I am ill-equipped to do so as you joked about.

Do you understand my beef now, and is it justifiable?

[edited]
Posted edited for my own vain reasons (Actually, I feel I've been too critical and deleted some things). Nevertheless I'm prepared to demonstrate a kind of pot-calling-the-teakettle-black behavior that idealists are often guilty of.

 

[FZ+]

Why would anyone except this definition of materialism and then say they are not a materialists? They would be admitting that they believe in things that do not exists. Surely centuries of texts are not written to waste paper debating such an issue. Surely your definition is wrong.

Because they do not accept the additional definitions that materialism takes for granted. Like the equality of undiscovered-material and non-material. Like the insistence that all attempts to find a division is futile, and ultimately useless. That is something to disagree with. Or that reality is based solely on influences. In short, you can accept this definition of materialism as "belief in the following definitions/axioms", but if you accept the following definitions/axioms themselves, you are already a materialist.

Rather like some say that theology must make the presumption of God's existence, whilst philosophy of religion can examine the beliefs externally. There's a definite line between accepting Buddhism as a system of supposedly self-evident principles and assumptions, and accepting those principles and assumptions.

Perhaps maths was a bad analogy. But even with maths, there is argument between those who hold maths to be the fundamental state of the universe, and those who consider it to be a simple tool. There are also alternatives to maths - most philosophers barely use maths at all, but still attempt to understand the same universe.

There are other eyes through which to see the universe, which brings in their own scheme of colours, their own set of shapes. If all you have is two eyes to compare, you cannot say which is the correct eye.


EDIT: Though there may be a difference between me and most such texts. In such texts, definitions of materialism are present in correspondance to a debate, or an argument to conclude whether (or not) materialism is correct. For such cases to happen, it is then obvious necessary to attempt to remove as many assumptions as possible, to obtain a "cleansed" and almost scientific hypothesis. (in terms of being falsifiable) IMHO, then these attempts are generally failures, as we still cannot say whether materialism is right or wrong - nor are we any closer.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I already explained what bothers me and it isn’t, as you say, criticism of materialism and its assumptions. It is accepting your own assumptions as if they were a given while criticizing the assumptions of the materialists. You speak of God, spirit, and soul, then turn around and blast materialism for basically amounting to a belief system (as if yours wasn’t).

I have always said that God, spirit and soul are my believes. That I cannot prove or support those beliefs in any meaningful way to another. My beliefs are based on my personal experiences and observations. I do not mean to state them as fact, again I thought that that would be understood and a given. Materialism is also a belief system that is not always presented as such.

[QOUTE]
I am actually not as opposed to many of the things spoken against ‘materialism’ (whatever that means) as you might think, but if materialism cannot produce strong enough evidence of life coming solely via chemistry than likewise neither can you produce evidence of spirit, soul, or God. As I said, that is my beef.[/QUOTE]

You are right here. I can produce no evidence of God etc or that life began solely by the hand of God; but then, I don't make the unsubstantiated claim that it is the "most likely" either. Neither Les nor I have made any claim except that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely, unproveable and has no right to the title of "most likely simply because no other possibility is considered.

[QOUTE]
No, I think you have made contributions, even a good number I find favorable to my own way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I do appreciate your saying that. We often agree and/or think alike.

Well, if you’d really like to be blasted you should know I’ll be happy to oblige, haha
But then you might begin talking like this again;
Which was my reason for not attacking more forcefully, not because I am ill-equipped to do so as you joked about.

Maybe I should apologize for that; but, I just couldn't resist it. I was sure you would appreciate the humor and not be offended. I don't think that I would stand much of a chance if you really wanted to get down and dirty. I have seen you in action. For that I readily admit that I am not prepared.
Do you understand my beef now, and is it justifiable?

[QOUTE]
[edited]
Posted edited for my own vain reasons (Actually, I feel I've been too critical and deleted some things). Nevertheless I'm prepared to demonstrate a kind of pot-calling-the-teakettle-black behavior that idealists are often guilty of. [/QUOTE]
I do not consider myself an idealist; and, am very aware of the shakey ground on which I stand. I object (and I think Les does too; which is I think the point of this thread) to the very same things that you are objecting to but from the other side of the fence. It is the name calling and mud slinging as well as the arrogance of those who know that they are right and everyone else is wrong that I object to. After all it has long been said that people who think that they know everything are a constant annoyance to those of us who do.

 

[Fliption]

FZ, I'm not clear on what you're point is at all. It sounds like you are admiting that your definition is not consistent with academia but I can't be sure. It seems you are complicating this with your view of materialism so let's forget about the views of materialism. Let's just stick with what the words "material" and "non-material" mean in philosophical discussions. So now we don't have to worry about whether some ism is true or not. We'll just deal with the semantic issue of making a distinction between material and non-material. Clearly, a person who claims that a non-material thing exists would know it if he saw it. Right? Clearly this person would be able to make the distinction. How else could they claim that non-material things exists if they can't explain what makes that thing non-material?

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
I do not consider myself an idealist; and, am very aware of the shakey ground on which I stand. I object (and I think Les does too; which is I think the point of this thread) to the very same things that you are objecting to but from the other side of the fence. It is the name calling and mud slinging as well as the arrogance of those who know that they are right and everyone else is wrong that I object to.

I don't think you are an idealist either Royce. The only real idealist I've ever debated was booted from this site. I liked his spirit and devotion, but because of his definition of "real," I found it impossible to find any grounds for discussion with him. In an importance sense, the debate in this thread has been about what is "real."

This thread was meant to be a bit of a taunt (like my other infamous thread at the old PF "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly"). I did so because of what I perceive as a lack of breadth and depth of education by many materialists. That is, after having only studied that which supports material explanations, they then boldly claim materiality is all that's significant.

So my objection overall has been they've never looked into non-materiality properly. To say "properly" means there is a way to investigate inner stuff, and it isn't with "outer" investigative methods. On the other hand, non-materialists make the same mistake when they try to understand for all of reality using non-material investigative methods.

I think this issue is important enough to be isolated for a separate discussion, so I will try to find time to start another, more focused thread to discuss why materialists and non-materialists disagree.

Originally posted by Royce
After all it has long been said that people who think that they know everything are a constant annoyance to those of us who do.

Very funny! I have to remember to use that with my friends and, of course, my wife.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This thread was meant to be a bit of a taunt (like my other infamous thread at the old PF "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly").

This kind of behavior seems to me dangerously close to trolling and trying to start a flame war. What do others think!

 

[BoulderHead]

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

I complained about the title of this thread in my first post.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't think you are an idealist either Royce...

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. 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).

 

[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.