Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this. Please note that whether you think the above quote is effectively true or not has nothing to do with what the idealists really believes. You need a different definition. Otherwise, you are arguing against a view that you don't even understand.

I claim that idealists' views are different from mine, not opposite, you are creating a strawman. You are apparently the one lacking comprehension of my view.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I claim that idealists' views are different from mine, not opposite, you are creating a strawman. You are apparently the one lacking comprehension of my view.

I couldn't care less what you claim. The idealists view is directly opposite the extreme view you have taken. This fact is part of philosophy text, right along with the proper definition of each position.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I couldn't care less what you claim. The idealists view is directly opposite the extreme view you have taken.

I don't see my view as at all extreme...why do you see it that way? And again, I've not made many claims about the views of idealists, that you should make the claim you do.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Not 100% accurate. BH says he believes that the material is primary. It makes sense to me, judging from the examples I put forth, but I cannot prove it one way or the other and so I leave room for my ignorance.

I stand corrected. I apologize for misstating your position.

And here is where you and I meet our impasse, for I fail to see the sense of that statement. To me this is too much like saying you wouldn’t exist if I weren’t here to conceive of you. In fact, if every living thing on Earth died tonight, I have little doubt that tommorow the world would continue along its merry way.

It may. I think it probably would but it wouldn't make any difference would it. It would be unknowable and unknown. It would not exist in any mind.

This is the standard response of the idealists; others who cannot see their vision are limited and lacking, groping in darkness. This is really the ultimate insult, and the one idealists fail to see themselves making time and time again, even all the while complaining of poor treatment and lack of respect at the hands of so-called materialists.

My, my aren't we fast to take offense and find insult, he who likes to play rough. I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"

Nevertheless, outside the confines of my mental dungeon I see the sun, feel its warmth, gaze at beautiful scenery, and hold an appreciative feeling for my existence. It would matter no more or less to me to know that a god/s created it, for I could appreciate it no more than I currently do. So why really, would you want me to believe as you do?

I am glad for you that you do enjoy and appreciate it.

I really don't want you to believe as I do. I think that's impossible as we are two separate people. I gave my view and thoughts as to why there is bias/reason against materialism. You gave yours. Do you want me to believe as you do. I think not. Why then do you think that I want you to believe as I do.

Stop you materialist knee jerk reactions, BH, every time an idealist or idealist materialist mouths off.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"

One question: how can you 'look' at anything else?!?

 

[Royce]

Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see my view as at all extreme...why do you see it that way? And again, I've not made many claims about the views of idealists, that you should make the claim you do.

Zero, there are 2 views. Materialism and Idealism. One believes in the primacy of matter and the other believes in the primacy of immaterial things. The 2 extremes would be that the substance of the other does not exists at all, let alone be secondary to. These words aren't made up by posters in the forums. They are covered in philosophy text as are all the debates involving them. You're trying to paint your view out of this "corner" so that you won't have to respond to my points about your definition.

You asked the question and I'm telling you. Your unwillingness to do some studying on it and progress this topic a little is exactly why you see the attitudes you are inquiring about in the title of this thread. I'm just telling you this in case you really did want to know.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Zero, there are 2 views. Materialism and Idealism. One believes in the primacy of matter and the other believes in the primacy of immaterial things. The 2 extremes would be that the substance of the other does not exists at all, let alone be secondary to. These words aren't made up by posters in the forums. They are covered in philosophy text as are all the debates involving them. You're trying to paint your view out of this "corner" so that you won't have to respond to my points about your definition.

You asked the question and I'm telling you. Your unwillingness to do some studying on it and progress this topic a little is exactly why you see the attitudes you are inquiring about in the title of this thread. I'm just telling you this in case you really did want to know.

Do you really see it as being that black and white? And if you are that frustrated, why is this about teh only Philosophy thread you post to?
I don't feel like I am in a corner. I feel like materials paints 99% of teh room, and some folks are claiming that there is a whole other room in that last 1%.


Oh god, you've got me using bad metaphors!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

Possible a better way to put it is to think conceptually in the whole rather than thinking sequentuallyor linearly one piece at a time.

I cannot hold all or the universe in my mind much less all of reality; but I can hold the concepts, possibly as a symbol as in math and compare the two concepts.

Try as I might I cannot get a hold of a material universe with no mind to know it or of it.

Yes, the objective chair is in my mind as a perception as well a the concept of chair. Some what akin to Plato's forms. The concept of chair and all that it entails in it's many form exist in subjective reality or if you prefer in man's mind. We each have a chair concept in our minds and I am sure it is different for all of us; but there has to be some commonality or it would not still be chair.

Is it a real? No, it obviously is not objectively real; but, for me to recognize that object as a chair there must be the very subjectively real concept of chair in my mind.

We now are delving deeper into esoteric philosphy of what is or is not real and is there verying degrees of real or different types of real? If you want to go there we need to start a new thread. this one already has six different conversations going on all at once and is approaching 40 pages long.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
My, my aren't we fast to take offense and find insult, he who likes to play rough. I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"

First, I’m not offended at all, just calling it like I see it. The implication of that statement I responded to is about on par with my calling your god a unicorn, actually.
But let’s have another look anyway;

This I know is where we differ, To you BH and Zero the material has primacy and the spiritual doesn't exist. I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life. I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material. When one lives in a dungeon and never leaves or looks ouside the dungeon, the dungeon is all that exists to him. Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?

I fail to see the ‘if’.
Second, do you then deny holding the view that that is exactly how you think materialists look at the universe? From everything I’ve heard you say there isn’t much doubt about it; therefore even if you had used the word ‘if’ it only speaks of materialists and doesn’t provide any real escape clause…

I am glad for you that you do enjoy and appreciate it.

The feeling is of course mutual.

Why then do you think that I want you to believe as I do.

Simple, you make appeals like;

. I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material….

And;

…Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?

You would seem quite concerned ‘we’ unshackle ourselves from limiting factors so that we might be more in tune with the way you see things.
Does that help answer your question?

Stop you materialist knee jerk reactions, BH, every time an idealist or idealist materialist mouths off.

Stop your Idealist knee jerk reactions, Royce, every time a materialist calls your imaginations ‘unicorns’.
…snide remarks are ok, though, haha

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Possible a better way to put it is to think conceptually in the whole rather than thinking sequentuallyor linearly one piece at a time.

I can't even fit this sentence into my brain...

 

[Royce]

BH, I know for a fact, as you have all told me or implied it, that none of you really personnally believe or hold the pure objective materialist stance. Neither do I hold the purely Idealist stance as I have said often enough. We are discussing two seemingly opposing views of reality on a intellectual, philosophical level (down and dirty, no holds barred, in the gutter). Okay I misquoted myself. I said it somewhere I'm sure.

"I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life." says nearly the same thing. This is true no matter what you may or may not believe. If we refuse to look or think about something other than our system of beliefs we will and can never see any other view point.

Zero, I was going to say; "then try your mouth. I know its big enough." but you would really look rediculous with something like that coming out of your mouth. Maybe "DUH" or "HUH"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce

Zero, I was going to say; "then try your mouth. I know its big enough." but you would really look rediculous with something like that coming out of your mouth. Maybe "DUH" or "HUH"

Why don't you cut the insults and restate it? I was being serious, I'm not sure what you meant by that exactly.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I am in a corner. I feel like materials paints 99% of teh room, and some folks are claiming that there is a whole other room in that last 1%.

That's because of the way you are defining it.

Ignore me if you want but this is a philosophy topic that has been debated for centuries. At this basic level it is black and white. Greying it out so you don't have to deal with the issue is all that's going on here. I've told you before that it has nothing to do with what is actually true but you keep going there as if it means anything. Stop pointing out my posting habits and deal with this issue. YOU asked the question and I'm answering it for you.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you cut the insults and restate it? I was being serious, I'm not sure what you meant by that exactly.

In that case, if its necessary, I apologize.

One question: how can you 'look' at anything else?!?

But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

What I am trying to say is that instead of thinking about objective material reality and then subjective mental reality seperately think about one reality that contains both and think about how they are both part of the one reality and how they relate to one another if they do. The wholistic or conceptual, all of reality as one, approach rather than the linear sequential, this and then this, approach. Tie this in with my other most recent post about your chair and I think that you will better understand what I am trying to say. If not I will try again.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. And you think the definition "can be shown to exist" is actually a meaningful definition? How is this any different from Just saying it is the same as Existence? There is no difference. There is no way that anyone would ever disagree with materialism if it is defined this way. To reverse the wording, you are saying that an Idealists only believes in things that cannot be shown to exists. What person in there right mind would claim such a belief? Now this may be what you think they effectively believe but that is NOT what an idealists would tell you they believe. Which is my point about having a "consistent" meaningful definition of materialism.

Actually, Fliption, that is exactly what certain idealists (particularly Solipsists) claim. After all, if some things exist only in the mind, then how is it possible to "show them to exists" before others? How, for that matter, can you show anything to "someone else" if even that person must exist in your own mind?

Also you have missed quite a bit because Heusdens has stepped in since the point you quoted and has provided a much better, more usable definition then the useless one you are quoting.

Not necessarily useless. As I said, if it "can be shown to exist" to another person, then not only does that "other person" have to exist separate of the mind of the one "showing", but also the thing being "shown" must exist separate of both of them.

A distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it. This does not mean that they don't exists. I don't necessarily agree with your comment in a later post that love is the exact same thing as the physical process that causes it. I do think that components and processes can have distinctive holistic effects. And it is the holistic effect that is being described when the word love is used.

And btw, to me jumping in front of a gunman would be demonstrating an "act of love" not love itself. Love can not be demonstrated unless you can actually make someone feel it. Which according to Heusdens makes it an immaterial thing that does exists.

Then Heusdens is wrong on this one point (though I very much appreciate most of what he's posted, that I've read), since the very "feeling" of love can be explained as a hormonal and mental process. There needn't be any "inexplicable hidden variables" added.

I once saw a comic strip that showed two men by a blackboard. The one man had just finished writing the complex-looking equation on the blackboard, and the other was examining the equation. Well, the first step of the equation was pure mathematics, then he puts (in a sort of cloudish "bubble" (much like a "though bubble")) "Then A Miracle Occurs", and then the final step is also in mathematics. So, the other man says, "you should be a little more specific on that second step".

Anyway, the point is that you can say "the gunman is about to kill my mother, then because I feel love for her, I jump in front of the gunman. You need to be a little more specific about that "second step".

But this is a very different stance than saying that love doesn't exists at all. And maybe there is a freudian slip here because it looks like you are making a distinction between love and physical processes heheheh.

Overall this whole thread is very messy. There are many self proclaimed materialists who don't even agree with one another as to what it means to be a materialists. They are stepping all over one anothers arguments trying to get their jabs in. Yet the only people they are debating with is Iacchus32 and a few other people critical of the word materialism. So what are the true intentions here? Seems as if defending the word "materialism" is more important than defending any particular view.

Well, if we can all decide on an appropriate definition of materialism, then we can (more easily) resolve the different "sects" of materialism that are held by the different posters.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that in the case of a plant, it extends or "wills" itself towards the sun, whereas with gravity you have no choice but to feel its effects.

And the plant didn't have the choice to "extend" itself or not. A choice is given to conscious beings.

Also, with respect to the plant, the whole thing is contingent upon its being alive, and suggests a "rudimentary" form of consciousness.

Sure, but that "rudimentary form" isn't capable of "willing" anything. It just responds, as it has been "programmed" to do. Like you said, reaction is just a part of it's being alive.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet before the material world came into existence, don't you think it's conceivable that an immaterial one existed first? I certainly do.

And here it would be like the foreman put in charge of constructing a pyramid or temple or something. It just can't come together on its own. There has to be some code or blueprint (hence software) to tell everybody what to do.

Yet you are again missing the error. If the "blueprint" is immaterial, then there must be some "pathway" that is not quite material and not quite immaterial (which is not logically possible, even in principle) between the immaterial "blueprint" and the physical constituents that will obey it and become a planet.

 

[Zero]

Isn't it ok if we all disagree? Or should materialists subscribe to a dogma of some sort?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen this source mentioned from you before and thought I would make a caveat statement. There are other books on consciousness you can read as well and they have very different takes. Just because one book has an explanation that is consistent with your world view does NOT mean the issue is resolved. I would recommend you read the works of other scientists/philosophers and get a more consensus view. You'll find that the problem of consciousness is far from resolved.

No conclusions can be made from this at all. I just wanted to straighten out the facts.

And I thank you for that. I didn't mean to imply that the issue was resolved, nor even that Dennett was necessarily "right". Merely that he gives a more detailed explanation of that which I only generalized in my post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't it ok if we all disagree? Or should materialists subscribe to a dogma of some sort?

Materialism is one "dogma". The fact that people have branched off of the original "dogma" to satisfy their own personal opinions doesn't change that fact in the slightest. The same thing has happened with Christianity. If we are to accept that the Bible is true, then there was only one Jesus, and he only taught one "dogma". However, I walk down the main street in my town, and I see the "Seventh-Day Baptist" church and the "Christian Reformed" church right next to each other - each believing in their own interpretations of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this.

I know this was directed at Zero, but I feel compelled to inform you that this is a (more plain-and-simple, I grant you) version of exactly what a Solipsist (for example) believes. They don't believe that there is anything that can be rationally percieved, since nothing else exists anyway. There is only the "Primal Singularity" of their "minds".

I do not approve of Zero's modified version (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be rationally perceived to exist) anyway. I prefer the original (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be shown to exist, separate of the mind of the observer"). I see nothing logically wrong with it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

Ah ha! Finally, someone brings it up!

I ask you, Royce, do you think that Hellen Keller ever formed a picture in her mind? After all, the mind is immaterial, and it can (according to you) picture things without having perceived them through the physical senses first.

I have been reading Helen Keller's autobiography, and I must inform you that Daniel Dennett (and the rest of the materialist philosophers of the mind) were correct: a person who has never had sensory experience of a visible object, can never form a "mental picture". She was not even really conscious, until she was taught language, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Fliption
The other self proclaimed materialists posting in this thread seem to have grasped this and are only claiming that matter is primary. Not that it is all that exists. That's probably because they're using Heusdens more effective definition. Only you and Mentat have not done this.

I posted the same definition of matter (the one from Lenin) in one of LG's threads long ago. Perhaps you recall that, I don't know.

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. You've obviously not played Doom3.

The state of my hardware always lags software.

Originally posted by Fliption
…But what about sensations? I can have sensations as a result of a dream too but dreams aren't matter. Should sensations be more specific?

You mean by this to show how the immaterial can affect the material, am I correct?
I think the pat answer would be that material was responsible for the dreaming in the first place, and not the other way around. Certainly, body chemistry can alter the way a person thinks and feels and so the physical would seem to have a recognizable ‘control’ (that may be a poor choice a word to use) over the immaterial. I may be missing your point, but an example of what I’m thinking about concerns a dream I once had were I was being poked or stabbed within my dream. When I finally awakened, my body was pressing up against something sharp that didn’t belong in the bed. I don’t know how the object got there, but it was something I usually carried around with me, and so I ‘figured’ that I had simply laid it on the bed by mistake. I viewed this as my body being able to send signals to my brain, which in turn was altering my dream, perhaps trying to make sense of its discomfort by waking me up and/or by creating an image of someone in the dream poking me.

 

[Royce]

Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.
Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.
You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.

It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Also, as I said before, if the plant were conscious of it's "needs" then it would surely avoid "sticking it's head out" when a threat presents itself (the animal that wishes to eat it).

Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.

I think you are confusing "conscious" with "reactive". In truth, what is good about "consciousness" is that it can also be proactive, and it can even choose inaction, even when this makes it temporarily more difficult (it would not be following the "path of least resistance", because it chose not to).

You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

I use the term "dogma" because Zero used it. However, you are correct that I am posting that "materialism" has one, original, meaning. All "branches" therefrom are fine for each person, but can be misleading in a debate about actual "materialism".

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, Fliption, that is exactly what certain idealists (particularly Solipsists) claim. After all, if some things exist only in the mind, then how is it possible to "show them to exists" before others? How, for that matter, can you show anything to "someone else" if even that person must exist in your own mind?

Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Not necessarily useless. As I said, if it "can be shown to exist" to another person, then not only does that "other person" have to exist separate of the mind of the one "showing", but also the thing being "shown" must exist separate of both of them.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

Then Heusdens is wrong on this one point (though I very much appreciate most of what he's posted, that I've read), since the very "feeling" of love can be explained as a hormonal and mental process. There needn't be any "inexplicable hidden variables" added.

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

I once saw a comic strip that showed two men by a blackboard. The one man had just finished writing the complex-looking equation on the blackboard, and the other was examining the equation. Well, the first step of the equation was pure mathematics, then he puts (in a sort of cloudish "bubble" (much like a "though bubble")) "Then A Miracle Occurs", and then the final step is also in mathematics. So, the other man says, "you should be a little more specific on that second step".


Anyway, the point is that you can say "the gunman is about to kill my mother, then because I feel love for her, I jump in front of the gunman. You need to be a little more specific about that "second step".

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts. Once we have these definitions straight then we can pick a side based on our views of what is and what isn't. But you don't do this in the definitions themselves. Zero's definition has the conclusion built right into it.

Well, if we can all decide on an appropriate definition of materialism, then we can (more easily) resolve the different "sects" of materialism that are held by the different posters.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 textbook and educate themselves.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Are you suggesting that there is a "point to humans having brains"? Seems like you're implying that. I thought that the human brain was just a chance mutation that happened to be successful. Why should it need a point that can then be used to argue against what a plant is capable of? This should be interesting.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Yes it is, and that was part of my point. If I say that a purple cow exists, I am telling the truth, because I am an Idealist, and thus anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists. However, I cannot show this to exist.

However, if I say that a purple cow doesn't exist, I am telling the truth because I am a Materialist, and thus only things that be shown to exist really exist.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

I'll try to do that tomorrow (have very little time left now).

Anyway, if I can point at something, then I can show that it exists. If I can mathematically describe something, then I have shown that it exists. What is lacking here?

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

No, a definition is not just based on human consensus, the definition has existed as long as that which it defines, it is the word that was later assigned by humans. Thus, if I say (for example) "theory", I have used a word to describe the existent-independent-of-a-word-to-desribe-it thing that can be described as an hypothesis with a large measure of evidence to support it.

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts.

Fine, but "love" is a word, used to describe something that was originally believed to be non-physical (and emotion was not always considered a physical process, and, apparently, still isn't considered that by some people), so we are re-defining it, using scientific consensus as our basis.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 textbook and educate themselves.

True, and I think all of us (excluding no one) have been guilty of this from time to time.