Why the bias against materialism?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.

He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate."

And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?

And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...

Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Now how is it possible to be fully conscious, but not be aware that you have a brain? (although it's obviously there). Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support that which is by far "from neutral?" In which respect I don't think you can say the "bias itself" comes from the brain.

If not, then where does it come from?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Now how is it possible to be fully conscious, but not be aware that you have a brain? (although it's obviously there). Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support that which is by far "from neutral?" In which respect I don't think you can say the "bias itself" comes from the brain.

If not, then where does it come from?

Here we go with teh what ifs again. What if your consciousness is beamed into your brain by Zeta rays from the planet Remulak?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Sound is still vibration even after we hear it. Light is still radiation after we see it. Thinking that something mystical happens when humans are involved is self-centered egotism IMO.

No, to us vibration of this type is interpeted in our brain as sound and if we are conscious we hear sound not vibration. It is the same with light or any of our other senses. Unless consciousness and awareness are mystical to you then you last sentence is meaningless.

Again, Without consciousness or awareness the material world may still exist. It does not depend on awareness to exist but exists independantly on its own. In this way I am a materialist. But, without consciousness and awareness existing the existence of the material world would be unknown, unexperienced and moot. In short, so what? It has no point or meaning. None may be required for the world to exist in physical reality; but, it would be unknown and unknowing; therefore, it would not exist subjectively. Without sujective existence it would not exist in reality. Reality is a concept of the human mind. With no mind, no reality. Yes, that is semantical but valid never-the-less.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Here we go with teh what ifs again. What if your consciousness is beamed into your brain by Zeta rays from the planet Remulak?

Can I take that to mean you don't have an answer then?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Can I take that to mean you don't have an answer then?

Hmmm...I give you the same answer every day, when you post the same nonsense. Straight logic doesn't seem to work on your cult-controlled mind, so I figured I'd have a little fun. You seem to love 'what if' questions, based on nothing but your imagination, so I figured I would answer in your 'language'.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...I give you the same answer every day, when you post the same nonsense. Straight logic doesn't seem to work on your cult-controlled mind, so I figured I'd have a little fun. You seem to love 'what if' questions, based on nothing but your imagination, so I figured I would answer in your 'language'.

It's like I said, where does the bias come from?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

This is an interesting thing to say. It seems odd that anyone would think that "most" people feel this way, and then elude that the majority view is inferior to their own. Regardless, this quote is probably true in some cases.

On the other side of the table, I see people who are either 1)control freaks who cannot handle being in a position of perceived ignorance. Or 2) people with personal issues who use a meaningless existence to either justify some amoral position (again a control issue) or to strike back at some "established" expectation.

Of course none of these things "have" to be true. The hardest thing in the world is to admit that people who have different opinions "actually" see things differently.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
This is an interesting thing to say. It seems odd that anyone would think that "most" people feel this way, and then elude that the majority view is inferior to their own. Regardless, this quote is probably true in some cases.

On the other side of the table, I see people who are either 1)control freaks who cannot handle being in a position of perceived ignorance. Or 2) people with personal issues who use a meaningless existence to either justify some amoral position (again a control issue) or to strike back at some "established" expectation.

Of course none of these things "have" to be true. The hardest thing in the world is to admit that people who have different opinions "actually" see things differently.

Well, I didn't mean you, Fliption...I do think it is most people though...people believe in all sorts of stuff. I don't have beliefs myself, pesky things.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Here you look to put the immaterial before the material. This sounds like the immaterial has willed through consciousness the creation of a material body.

…Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support….

And if I’m reading you correctly then right here is a problem because how can you assume that the immaterial is primary if the brain (material) is needed to provide…?

I think your conclusion is premature.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here you look to put the immaterial before the material. This sounds like the immaterial has willed through consciousness the creation of a material body.

Yes, because "the intent" precedes the act, which then becomes the "outward manifestation" of the intent.

And if I’m reading you correctly then right here is a problem because how can you assume that the immaterial is primary if the brain (material) is needed to provide…?

I think your conclusion is premature.

Why should it be altogther different from that of a computer? The computer -- which itself is neutral -- is just a means of expressing that which is "transferred" through the medium or software.

Whereas how did the brain get there, if it hadn't evolved, through "conscious intent," to become a brain? (in the capacity we now experience currently).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I didn't mean you, Fliption...I do think it is most people though...people believe in all sorts of stuff. I don't have beliefs myself, pesky things.

Yeah, I didn't think you meant me. I just thought it was a good post to respond to. I personally can understand why you might make the claim that "most" people have this issue. But the wise side of me gets in the way and warns me to be careful when I conclude that everybody is wrong but me. Pesky wisdom.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I didn't mean you, Fliption...I do think it is most people though...people believe in all sorts of stuff. I don't have beliefs myself, pesky things.

But don't you believe that you don't have beliefs?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. Because 2 proclaimed materialists claim it is so when it is in their interest to do so, is not convincing to me. Nor should it be if I'm going to honestly attempt to find truth.

I am pretty sure I am not wrong on this. You say "we materialists stand against those ideas". And the ideas that you're referring to are "some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'".

But these statements have nothing to do with materialism. This is my point. You mentioned 'love' earlier. You obviously think that it exists because you said it shows how complex the brain is. Do you consider it material? I am not trying to say that this proves ghost, or santa claus(or any other childish insulting label you can think of) exists. All I'm trying to show you is that 'material'cannot be the same as 'existence'. Science could not show that a quark existed at one time in it's history. Does that mean that quarks weren't material then? Hopefully you can see the problem with making material synonmous with "known to exist".

In order for people to have philosophical debates, they must agree on the definitions of the concepts about which they disagree. The whole philosphical debate around materialism has been going on for years. What I am certain about is that no one in their right mind would
disagree with materialism if your definition is correct. You have conveniently defined it so that it cannot be wrong. No philosopher would ever accept the definition that material things are the things that exists and then turn around and say that non-material things DO exists. They cannot exists by definition! That's
just nuts! So what's all the debate about? Well, they probably have a better definition.

If the non-materialist people that post in this forum were to use this definition they would still claim that god exists. They would simply claim that he is material. The debate would then just shift from materialism versus non-materialism to god
vs no-god. This definition of material solves nothing. It is meaningless.

I'm sorry if this point has already been made, I have yet to read the entire thread, but I think that you have missed the most important part of Zero's definition of "materialism", namely: "Can be shown to exist". After all, we can talk of love, but it doesn't exist unless a certain brain/body process occurs, and it cannot be realized unless certain actions take place (for example, if I jump in front of a gunman to save my mother's life, I have demonstrated love).

So, I guess what my point is is that, to the materialist, love is a physical/material process, and there can be no love without some kind of physical interaction.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
But don't you believe that you don't have beliefs?

No, I'm confident that I don't have beliefs...but I'm not willing to stake any cash on it!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat


So, I guess what my point is is that, to the materialist, love is a physical/material process, and there can be no love without some kind of physical interaction.

That sounds dirty...

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your statement there is in fact correct. Not because materialism is absurd, but it is your idea about materialism which is absurd.

My idea of materialism has no bearing on my post. If you read it then you know that I used the definitions supplied by Merriam Webster on-line dictionary and those supplied by Zero. It was those definitions that I responded to.

Matter denotes a philosophical category which denotes objective reality, which is that which is outside and independend of the human mind, and which can be known by the human mind.

Matter as such, does not exist. Matter is an abstract category (like "fruit", "womanhood"). We only know matter by way of material existence forms.

If matter is a philosophical category and an abstract category the matter is subjective and not material and my argument stands. Make up your mind matter is either material or subjective or both. If other than a physical existent reality then your argument supports mine.

Further you have to distinguish between phyiscal matter (which are discontinuous forms of energy, like particles) and philosophical matter. They are not the same.

Once again you support my argument that there is more to reality than physical material matter. You also show hat materialist have expanded their definitions and and limits to the point that masterialism has lost all meaning as a philosophical position or belief system. The position you are ststing is that of a subjective materialist if there is such a thing. To me the word are mutually exclusive and therefore meaningless.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
That sounds dirty...

LOL!

And here I was trying to make a serious point.

 

[Royce]

Welcome back Mentat. We missed you. Love is not a material thing but a subjective and emotional thing. The material physical can demonstrate acts of love and it can be measured by measuring the bodies response to love. This by Zero's definition makes it real and existent but further delutes the material to include more of the immaterial making the word as used by him meaningless. It is not just Zero who has done this but every materialist I have ebncountered either here, personnally or have read. The purely materialist position is intenable and therefore rather than change their position they change their definition of material until it becomes meaningless.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
LOL!

And here I was trying to make a serious point.

Well, you are one of the few capable of it, anyways.
We see objective things in a subjective way, this is true. That does not deny the existence of things objectively, however. I am saying that we can only have objective experience of, or through, an objective, material universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Welcome back Mentat. We missed you. Love is not a material thing but a subjective and emotional thing. The material physical can demonstrate acts of love and it can be measured by measuring the bodies response to love. This by Zero's definition makes it real and existent but further delutes the material to include more of the immaterial making the word as used by him meaningless. It is not just Zero who has done this but every materialist I have ebncountered either here, personnally or have read. The purely materialist position is intenable and therefore rather than change their position they change their definition of material until it becomes meaningless.

I'm sorry, dear friend, but you may still be wrong here. After all, do you really think that any kind of love (the family kind, the close friend kind, the sexual kind, etc...) would exist if no physical processes occurred in the body?

Also, my point is not that the process of the body "brings forth" the non-physical thing (can I really say "thing" about something that isn't physical?) that you call "love". No, my point is rather that love itself is nothing other than this physical process and the results thereof.

 

[Zero]

What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you are one of the few capable of it, anyways.
We see objective things in a subjective way, this is true. That does not deny the existence of things objectively, however. I am saying that we can only have objective experience of, or through, an objective, material universe.

Oddly enough, even you may not be materialistic enough! After all, you still separate the things that go on in the mind from the things that go on in the brain (by saying that we "experience the objective world subjectively").

You see, if there were a "subjective" mind that was viewing the "objective" world then there would have to be some "channel" that was both subjective and objectively real (kind of a half-and-half deal, ridiculous as that sounds) between the "objectively" existing brain, and the "subjective" mind, wouldn't there? Doesn't sound too logical to me...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)

Were you asking this to me?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
Oddly enough, even you may not be materialistic enough! After all, you still separate the things that go on in the mind from the things that go on in the brain (by saying that we "experience the objective world subjectively").

You see, if there were a "subjective" mind that was viewing the "objective" world then there would have to be some "channel" that was both subjective and objectively real (kind of a half-and-half deal, ridiculous as that sounds) between the "objectively" existing brain, and the "subjective" mind, wouldn't there? Doesn't sound too logical to me...

Oddly enough, I think it was a semantic error...because the subjective viewpoint is a matter of no two minds being physically identical. I am NOT saying that there is a mind/brain separation.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)

Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things.

LOL, at least you are consistant...did you ever consider including biology and chemistry in your answer?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things.

Surely you realize, Iacchus, that a plant is not capable of any of those things that you mention. After all, if all things were capable of these things, what would be the purpose of a complex brain, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens have?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
Were you asking this to me?

Asking everyone...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Asking everyone...

Ok, I'd say that it's the same thing that causes a hungry animal to seek out food: the innate need to supply energy to our cells.

Now, a point that I feel should be mentioned is that this has nothing to do with a conscious choice of what's better for the plant (or for the hungry animal, for that matter). After all, the plant will tend toward the sun, no matter what (even if there is some animal standing there waiting to gobble it up). The plant doesn't "care" about the dangers, just as it doesn't "care" about the sun. It does what it's programmed to do.

It should be easy for you to apply this to the hungry animal yourself, so I won't state the obvious...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, at least you are consistant...did you ever consider including biology and chemistry in your answer?

Actually I was going to say photosynthesis, but I think there's another "scientific" term for this. How about phototropism?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Oddly enough, I think it was a semantic error...because the subjective viewpoint is a matter of no two minds being physically identical. I am NOT saying that there is a mind/brain separation.

It could have been a semantic error, or it could have been a Freudian slip, which is what I took it for.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ok, I'd say that it's the same thing that causes a hungry animal to seek out food: the innate need to supply energy to our cells.

Now, a point that I feel should be mentioned is that this has nothing to do with a conscious choice of what's better for the plant (or for the hungry animal, for that matter). After all, the plant will tend toward the sun, no matter what (even if there is some animal standing there waiting to gobble it up). The plant doesn't "care" about the dangers, just as it doesn't "care" about the sun. It does what it's programmed to do.

It should be easy for you to apply this to the hungry animal yourself, so I won't state the obvious...

I'll state the obvious...!

'Consciousness' is a refinement of the same physical processes that drive a plant towards the sun, and an animal to seek food. There's nothing 'mystical' or 'magical' or 'other' about it. It is the same thing as any other biological process, only on a different scale, and to a different purpose.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
It could have been a semantic error, or it could have been a Freudian slip, which is what I took it for.

Nope, the only Freudian slip was yours about the 'physical love' stuff...LOL

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I was going to say photosynthesis, but I think there's another "scientific" term for this. How about phototropism?

So, are you saying that it is a physical process, or that plants have will and desire(not that I don't think those are physical as well)?

 

[Royce]

Which again bring us to my position that there is no real dichotomy or mutually exclusive aspect to the objective material and subjective. They both exist, both dependant on the other for their existence in reality. Not that the phisical rquires the mental to exist or that the mental causes the physical to exist but that reality is a mental concept and for the physical to be known requires a conscious aware mind. The reality is that both exist in unison and in harmony and in nature, our arguements and name calling not with standing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll state the obvious...!

'Consciousness' is a refinement of the same physical processes that drive a plant towards the sun, and an animal to seek food. There's nothing 'mystical' or 'magical' or 'other' about it. It is the same thing as any other biological process, only on a different scale, and to a different purpose.

Good man!

Yes, that was the obvious (though I was - rather irrationaly - hoping that one of the mystics here would find that. Oh well, they probably needed you to spell it out for them anyway ), and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I suggest reading the whole thing).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Which again bring us to my position that there is no real dichotomy or mutually exclusive aspect to the objective material and subjective. They both exist, both dependant on the other for their existence in reality. Not that the phisical rquires the mental to exist or that the mental causes the physical to exist but that reality is a mental concept and for the physical to be known requires a conscious aware mind. The reality is that both exist in unison and in harmony and in nature, our arguements and name calling not with standing.

Ummmm...ok?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Which again bring us to my position that there is no real dichotomy or mutually exclusive aspect to the objective material and subjective. They both exist, both dependant on the other for their existence in reality. Not that the phisical rquires the mental to exist or that the mental causes the physical to exist but that reality is a mental concept and for the physical to be known requires a conscious aware mind. The reality is that both exist in unison and in harmony and in nature, our arguements and name calling not with standing.

I just got back, and I have to disagree with my good buddy Royce twice in the same thread? Man!

Anyway, I think that the subject of the "mind" and "consciousness" has been overlooked by the materialists and misused by the "opposition" (and I include you in this Royce, since, while you are not against materialism, you are not for it either).

The truth is that (as Zero pointed out) "consciousness" which we glamorize so much, is nothing more than a highly-evolved form of that which primitive animals and even plants have been doing for billions of years.

The fact that we've learned some "tricks" that they haven't is only interesting because one of those "tricks" is the ability to think of something as "interesting".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
Good man!

Yes, that was the obvious (though I was - rather irrationaly - hoping that one of the mystics here would find that. Oh well, they probably needed you to spell it out for them anyway ), and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I suggest reading the whole thing).

Well, the 'obvious' is never apparent in the Philosophy forum, in case you have forgotten?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Surely you realize, Iacchus, that a plant is not capable of any of those things that you mention. After all, if all things were capable of these things, what would be the purpose of a complex brain, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens have?

Are you saying that a plant has no means by which to acknowledge the sun, and is not dependent upon it either? And since when is "acknowledgment" not to be construed as a form of consciousness? Or "dependency" not to be construed as worship? Granted, we're speaking of something in its "rudimentary form," but the same principle nonetheless.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
I just got back, and I have to disagree with my good buddy Royce twice in the same thread? Man!

Anyway, I think that the subject of the "mind" and "consciousness" has been overlooked by the materialists and misused by the "opposition" (and I include you in this Royce, since, while you are not against materialism, you are not for it either).

The truth is that (as Zero pointed out) "consciousness" which we glamorize so much, is nothing more than a highly-evolved form of that which primitive animals and even plants have been doing for billions of years.

The fact that we've learned some "tricks" that they haven't is only interesting because one of those "tricks" is the ability to think of something as "interesting".

Well, I don't think that Royce is wrong exactly...I just know that he sees things differently than I do.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, because "the intent" precedes the act, which then becomes the "outward manifestation" of the intent.


Why should it be altogther different from that of a computer? The computer -- which itself is neutral -- is just a means of expressing that which is "transferred" through the medium or software.

Whereas how did the brain get there, if it hadn't evolved, through "conscious intent," to become a brain? (in the capacity we now experience currently).

I just don’t buy it. In the case of the computer analogy you make it sound as if the software created the hardware, but that isn’t really accurate.

What I see is base matter; rocks, lava, water, etc. I simply see no reason to associate anything approaching a level of consciousness with these things, and yet it is quite easy to believe that these things existed long before living organisms, and their conscious awareness, came into being. Therefore I see matter as primary and not secondary. I also find it quite easy to believe that, despite the way in which we may marvel over ourselves, that if my head were to be flattened by a steam-roller, my marveling will come to an abrupt end. Everything that I’ve ever experienced indicates that consciousness is bound to matter, and nothing have I experienced leads me to believe that matter arose from consciousness, or that it can survive independantly without a physical counterpart. In other words;

“Though consciousness is secondary, it is a feature of highly organised matter - the brain - and therefore exists in reality. Far from being alien to nature, consciousness is as normal a product of the natural world as those material objects which it reflects.”

In keeping with the ‘will of consciousness’ thing;

“Consciousness really exists. It is an active element in man's transformation of the world, since we use our scientific knowledge to manipulate nature to achieve planned aims. 'Man's consciousness,' wrote Lenin,' not only reflects the objective world, but creates it.'”

But that is not to say that consciousness exists independently of matter, which would be the view of an idealist, and I believe your view.

[edit]
I would edit to say that the use of the word 'creates' in that quote from lenin means only to me 'reshape', not 'something from nothing'.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you saying that a plant has no means by which to acknowledge the sun, and is not dependent upon it either? And since when is "acknowledgment" not to be construed as a form of consciousness? Or "dependency" not to be construed as worship? Granted, we're speaking of something in its "rudimentary form," but the same principle nonetheless.

What I am saying is that those ideas have little basis in reality. Just because something appears a certain way, from an anthropomorphic point of view, doesn't make it so...by your logic, objects 'love and worship' the ground, and that is how gravity works.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Nope, the only Freudian slip was yours about the 'physical love' stuff...LOL

Ha ha.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, the 'obvious' is never apparent in the Philosophy forum, in case you have forgotten?

Well, it has been a LONG time...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I don't think that Royce is wrong exactly...I just know that he sees things differently than I do.

Yes, and when one sees the matter one way, and the other sees it another way, one of them is wrong. I'm not saying that that's necessarily Royce, and I'm not saying it's you (remember, I am the Devil's Advocate , so I don't usually express "my opinion"), but one of you must need correction.