Why the bias against materialism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags 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.
  • #451
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." :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #452
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." :wink:
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.
 
  • #453
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?
 
  • #454
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?
And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...
 
  • #455
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? :wink:
 
  • #456
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? :wink:
Here we go with teh what ifs again. What if your consciousness is beamed into your brain by Zeta rays from the planet Remulak?
 
  • #457
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.
 
  • #458
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?
 
  • #459
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'.
 
  • #460
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?
 
  • #461
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.
 
  • #462
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.
 
  • #463
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.
 
  • #464
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #465
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.
 
  • #466
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?
 
  • #467
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.
 
  • #468
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!
 
  • #469
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...
 
  • #470
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.
 
  • #471
Originally posted by Zero
That sounds dirty...

LOL!

And here I was trying to make a serious point. :wink:
 
  • #472
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.
 
  • #473
Originally posted by Mentat
LOL!

And here I was trying to make a serious point. :wink:
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.
 
  • #474
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.
 
  • #475
What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)
 
  • #476
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...
 
  • #477
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?
 
  • #478
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.
 
  • #479
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. :wink:
 
  • #480
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?
 

Similar threads

Staged Blackouts: A Solution to Reduce Power Outage Consequences?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
News Off-topic discussion from Why talk about 1967 borders?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
On Hume, Simultineity, the Fractal Nature of Reality in Time and Inductivism
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
Why is ESP lumped with less credible phenomena?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
16K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Does God Exist? Evidence & Arguments For & Against
  • · Replies 200 ·
7
Replies
200
Views
20K
News Is Administrative Detention For Israelis Just?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
B Some questions about "superdeterminism" and Bell's Theorem
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
11K
I What Are the Empirical Challenges Facing Quantum Gravity Theories?
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
15K
Is Our Perception of Reality Fundamentally Flawed?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K