- #271
Zero
STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR NONSENSE!
Why the bias against materialism?
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Bias
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the tension between materialism and idealism, emphasizing that materialistic views are often dismissed despite their empirical support. Participants argue that while science is a valuable tool for understanding the physical universe, it has limitations and cannot fully explain consciousness or the meaning of life. There is a critique of anti-materialist sentiments, likening them to historical resistance against scientific progress, and highlighting the psychological need for beliefs beyond materialism. The conversation also touches on the role of community in belief systems and the subjective nature of human experience. Ultimately, the debate reflects a struggle to reconcile scientific understanding with deeper existential questions.
- #272
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.
Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"
Last edited:
- #273
Zero
I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.
- #274
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Or, at the very least it "testifies" to the intelligence behind the design.
By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.
- #275
Zero
What? You haven't actually reported seeing anything, except things you imagined. I've read lots of your posts, and most of the time you imagine stuff, then come to unfounded conclusions based on your imaginings.
- #276
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?
Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.
Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.
- #277
Zero
Information doesn't have a separate existence from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...
- #278
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?
I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.
- #279
Zero
You know, it makes perfect sense in my head, and I am just not explaining it right...let me think some more on it, ok? Your criticism would be spot-on, if I meant what you think I mean, which I don't.
- #280
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
In the interest of coherency, I have decided to write my reply a second time, and make it a little more succinct
This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing. You cannot deny that we are subjective...but how does subjectivity come about? I mean, we have the objective brain things (collection of cells transmitting electro-chemical signals etc) and from those things, somehow, our subjective point of view arises.
I think our subjectivity can be simply explained (although we don't know how to) as a direct consequence of the physical make up of our brain.
Now, the Software not being a physical thing: I think the substratum of the software is the only actual existence of the information. It exists as a CD, and nothing else. Our perception of 'Information' as if it was something else, is just a consequence of our subjectivity: just as we experience lightning, although lightning is nothing more than static electricity. To look at paint and see paint, but then get magic atom glasses and look at the atoms that make up the paint, and see atoms, is to miss the point that the atoms actually are the paint.
For instance, the red example: Where we experience red, there is actually only light of a particular wavelength. Just because we experience Red, does not mean that 'Light carries the information for Red', but rather that something in the subjectivity creating factory in our brains is triggered by light hitting it, which makes us experience red. Cause and effect. 'Information' above and beyond the existence of the light wave is not required. Just as information above and beyond the existence of the particle (which has mass be definition) is not required, and just as the structure of the 'bits' on the CD require no extra information above and beyond the physical structure of those bits. Although the consequence of the structure ends up being quite meaningful to our subjectivity, that is simply a causal relationship that flows through the CD, to the CD player, into the Processor, through the RAM, into the monitor/speakers etc, into our eyes ears etc, into our subjectivity factory in the brain.
Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.
Hope I could help...?
This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing. You cannot deny that we are subjective...but how does subjectivity come about? I mean, we have the objective brain things (collection of cells transmitting electro-chemical signals etc) and from those things, somehow, our subjective point of view arises.
I think our subjectivity can be simply explained (although we don't know how to) as a direct consequence of the physical make up of our brain.
Now, the Software not being a physical thing: I think the substratum of the software is the only actual existence of the information. It exists as a CD, and nothing else. Our perception of 'Information' as if it was something else, is just a consequence of our subjectivity: just as we experience lightning, although lightning is nothing more than static electricity. To look at paint and see paint, but then get magic atom glasses and look at the atoms that make up the paint, and see atoms, is to miss the point that the atoms actually are the paint.
For instance, the red example: Where we experience red, there is actually only light of a particular wavelength. Just because we experience Red, does not mean that 'Light carries the information for Red', but rather that something in the subjectivity creating factory in our brains is triggered by light hitting it, which makes us experience red. Cause and effect. 'Information' above and beyond the existence of the light wave is not required. Just as information above and beyond the existence of the particle (which has mass be definition) is not required, and just as the structure of the 'bits' on the CD require no extra information above and beyond the physical structure of those bits. Although the consequence of the structure ends up being quite meaningful to our subjectivity, that is simply a causal relationship that flows through the CD, to the CD player, into the Processor, through the RAM, into the monitor/speakers etc, into our eyes ears etc, into our subjectivity factory in the brain.
Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.
Hope I could help...?
- #281
Royce
- 1,538
- 0
AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.
As I am a frugel man I would obviously but the blank CD but try as I might to load the program into my computer I get nothing.
Knowledge is. Information is. Our physical brain is the hardware on which the information and knowledge reside and operate. The electrochemical processes supply the energy and electrons to allow the hardware to run the software.
I can buy the most expensive complicated and advanced computer in the world and set it up and plug it in and turn it on. Even it I buy all he CD's in the world written or un written and load them onto my computer, the computer is not going to do anything until I tell it to do something and the it is only go to do exactly what I tell it to do, not necessarily what I want it to do. It is the same with our brains and minds. Every living human being has a funtioning brain. Every living human being does not know how or use his brain with the same efficency or to do the same thing. Even if we spent 20 years loading information into a number of brains as in education people, the results will differ drastically from one individual to another.
All phd's are not the same. If it were just a matter of physical brains there would not be that much difference in final results.
As I am a frugel man I would obviously but the blank CD but try as I might to load the program into my computer I get nothing.
Knowledge is. Information is. Our physical brain is the hardware on which the information and knowledge reside and operate. The electrochemical processes supply the energy and electrons to allow the hardware to run the software.
I can buy the most expensive complicated and advanced computer in the world and set it up and plug it in and turn it on. Even it I buy all he CD's in the world written or un written and load them onto my computer, the computer is not going to do anything until I tell it to do something and the it is only go to do exactly what I tell it to do, not necessarily what I want it to do. It is the same with our brains and minds. Every living human being has a funtioning brain. Every living human being does not know how or use his brain with the same efficency or to do the same thing. Even if we spent 20 years loading information into a number of brains as in education people, the results will differ drastically from one individual to another.
All phd's are not the same. If it were just a matter of physical brains there would not be that much difference in final results.
- #282
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)
- #283
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?
What I am saying does not mean that at all. In fact, it says the very opposite. It says that the $200 CD is much more worth it, because the CD has a very important part of it altered so that the computer which interacts with it does something impressive. The $2 CD does not have this alteration, and so makes for a very boring interaction.
I am simply saying that you do not pay $200 for the CD with the funky alterations, and the information that comes with it. The information is only a consequence of the funky alterations.
Of course, I say the above with an attempt at Objectivity, and I only say it that way because of the context of the discussion. It is true that in daily usage I would say "The $200 CD is worth it, because of the information it contains"...but that is a euphemism, a way of talking, a convenient expression to get a point across. It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.
- #284
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
What I say here I say because of many things I've read on the topic. So it isn't just me.
- #285
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because that's what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.
In this way, we could call everything information. DNA holds information of the base pairs, the light waves holds the information of the the colour it will impart into the human consciousness, the atom holds the information of its mass and dimensions, the snooked ball holds the information of its momentum, and it even acts to impart some of this information into the snooker ball it collides with...not only that, but it instantaneously calculates a complicated trajectory equation, and the momentum is transformed in the passing.
But it becomes silly to talk about 'information' in this way. The fact is, these things are just acting in the way they act. Doing what they do. it is not that the ball carries the information of its momentum with it...it is that the ball is momentus (if that's not a word, then it is now) (the ball is in motion).
Now how you want to name that, how you want to say, how you want to think of it is your own deal, but don't confuse human simplification of the matter with how it is.
Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but that's just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.
- #286
Zero
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.
- #287
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Nothing you are saying is refuting the fact that in order to have the universe, you have to have the things in the universe and then the rules which govern how those things interact. I don't care what you call it; information or not information. These rules are not material yet they do exists.
- #288
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.
But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.
- #289
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!
- #290
Zero
Nothing metaphysical about it. As I said, roundness exists, as a property of matter, described by pi.
- #291
Zero
This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?
- #292
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay?
Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!
- #293
Zero
LOLOriginally posted by Iacchus32
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay?
Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!
- #294
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
"Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy."
Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of developments in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes. Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."
This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.
But it does appear to contradict what Zero is saying. This article at least makes the distinction between information and it's media.
- #295
Zero
I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.
- #296
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.
- #297
Zero
Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.
- #298
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol
- #299
Zero
I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol
- #300
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
I meant to say at the bottom that I assume you were kidding. But who knows? Maybe you weren't.
The question is "will you actively pursue looking into progress in this area or will it be forgotten until someone brings it up in another "bash everyone who disagrees with me thread"?