# The Metaphysics of Materialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2001, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392 "2001-10-19T10:55:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/181 "2001-11-02T14:58:13Z")
Lordy. Maybe there’s just a chasm between us so profound that neither of us can understand the other. You say you don’t know where I’m coming from or where I’m going. Rest assured, the bewilderment is mutual. I’m still stuck trying to wrap my brain around an existence that is ontologically meaningless yet includes observers whose observations _are_ meaningful — but not material! The brain itself is material, but it produces ghosts (concepts) that aren’t. Material reality is manifest subjectively. And yet, objectively, too. These observers are part of the existence, one presumes, and yet they are like the wind, neither here nor there, incorporeal and yet material. Predications without agency. It is all mystical beyond anything I’ve ever seen in theology. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/182 "2001-11-02T15:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > It is all mystical beyond anything I’ve ever seen in theology. Maybe this experiment will help you: With a friend assisting, stand on an accurate scale; not a Dr.'s scale, but a dynamic scale which registers changes either on an analog dial or preferably a digital readout. Hold out both hands together, palms up, cupped. A. Now close your eyes and embrace a new concept. Have your friend record any changes on the scale. B. Now do the same thing as your friend pours Karo corn syrup into your cupped hands. What changes did the scale register during part A? Part B? What does this imply about the material nature of concepts? Of Karo corn syrup? There’s nothing mystical about materialism. That’s one of the clues that distinguishes it from mysticism. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/183 "2001-11-02T16:01:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > **What does this imply about the material nature of concepts?** From you experiment, I gather that concepts are not material. But then the question is, does the concept exist? If yes, then in a Materialist worldview, it must be measurable. How? By changes in **Lib’s** brain chemistry or neural network while is is conceiving of the concept? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/184 "2001-11-02T16:18:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Homebrew** _ > From you experiment, I gather that concepts are not material. But then the question is, does the concept exist? > > If yes, then in a Materialist worldview, it must be measurable. How? By changes in **Lib’s** brain chemistry or neural network while is is conceiving of the concept? Excellent questions. Yes, I would say the concept exists, but other materialists may disagree with that (I can’t speak for the whole lot of 'em). I don’t know how much information regarding the concept itself could be gained through observation of **Lib** ’s brain chemistry, though. I’d say any assessment of the effect of the concept on **Lib** is mostly dependent on his communication regarding it. Remember, an immaterial thing can’t be _objectively_ evaluated. (There’s no _object_.) ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/185 "2001-11-02T16:36:01Z")
**Lib** Let’s take this piece by piece. You’re apology is accepted. I think much of the problem was a misunderstanding. Your statement about cake meant something entirely different to me. I’m going to mostly comment on your post reacting to **xeno** because it has more substance. > [@](#): > > …ontologically meaningless… As I understand this phrase, it means that something is meaningless when having to do with the theory or study of existence. I don’t think you mean this. These are the kinds of statements that make this discussion frustrating for me. Are you really saying that a philosophy which defines existence is meaningless when speaking of existence? > [@](#): > > …yet includes observers whose observations _are_ meaningful — but not material! The brain itself is material, but it produces ghosts (concepts) that aren’t. The brain includes substances and forces which sometimes comprise a concept. Many concepts are relationships between material objects. The pattern of forces and substances is real. The relationship, if the concept is correct, is a real way in which matter/energy acts. > [@](#): > > Material reality is manifest subjectively. And yet, objectively, too. These observers are part of the existence, one presumes, and yet they are like the wind, neither here nor there, incorporeal and yet material. Predications without agency. I submit that a baseball player could exist who could someday bat 1.000 for an entire season. This player, most likely, will never exist and yet he COULD. Such a creature is the being who could observe a piece of existence that no individual can currently observe. They COULD exist, unlike spirits. How I come to the conclusion has to do with the axiom of materialism. I have conceived of that axiom by noticing that there is material everywhere I look but spirits nowhere. Some people tell me that they can detect spirits, but not how. Some people tell me how to do it, but upon testing it doesn’t work. Some people tell me of how many ways they have attempted to detect all manner of things and spirits are never detected. All evidence points to materialism. This, you are correct, is not absolutely conclusive. People are fallable. I, in particular, am fallable. Doesn’t mean that I AM wrong. I am a materialist. Are Christians infallable? Is it impossible that you are wrong? > [@](#): > > It is all mystical beyond anything I’ve ever seen in theology. Nothing mystical about it unless you mean that you haven’t been able to understand it. from Encarta: > [@](#): > > mys·ti·cal [místik’l] adjective > > 1. RELIGION with divine meaning: with a divine meaning beyond human understanding > 2. RELIGION of mysticism: relating to or involving mysticism or mystics > 3. PARANORMAL with supernatural significance: with supernatural or spiritual significance or power > 4. mysterious: mysterious or difficult to understand I’m hoping you were talking about meaning number 4, otherwise there’s something else you misunderstand. I’m afraid **xeno** ’s experiment with Karo will only provoke you to comeup with example’s of material things that do not have weight or are at least unmeasurable by current technology. We cannot and no one will ever be able to perceive the entire universe. No one can ever know the whole of existence. The axiom of materialism is that there is no non-material part of the universe. Did we ever get a good definition of material? (sheesh, been working on this post on and off for about an hour and fifteen minutes. going to have to reload the thread.) Material, for me, is energy/matter. Energy/matter has properties/relationships. These are real. Example: Let’s think about a set in mathematics. There can be a set of even numbers. All the numbers are divisible by two, but divisiblity by 2 is not a part of the set, it’s a property of the set. This is different from an agent that causes all the numbers to be divisible by 2. It is merely a fact that, in the set being considered, all the numbers are divisible by 2. Does this make sense? Do other materialist concur with my definitions? I hope this helps with the existence of concepts vs. the non-materiality of concepts. Within existence, I can look at the ever diminishing probablitity of the existence of a God (from my point of view), compare that with my thoughts on goodness and what a good God might be like, and conclude that it is absolutely impossible that such a being could exist. The only supernatural beings that I cannot refute in this general way are ones that somehow want things to happen exactly as they are today, which, IMHO, is strangely random and excessively cruel, or ones who do not in any way affect us. I see no reason to consider these concepts seriously. What good could it do me? OK, going to post and see what happens. Gotta get some work done. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/186 "2001-11-02T17:17:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VileOrb \* > \*\*The brain includes substances and forces which sometimes comprise a concept. Many concepts are relationships between material objects. The pattern of forces and substances is real. The relationship, if the concept is correct, is a real way in which matter/energy acts. > > The axiom of materialism is that there is no non-material part of the universe. > > Material, for me, is energy/matter. Energy/matter has properties/relationships. These are real. > > I hope this helps with the existence of concepts vs. the non-materiality of concepts. > > \*\* This is the part I have difficulty understanding. You say that concepts are non-material. _(or did I misunderstand)_ You also say that there is no non-material part of the universe. Therefore, I must conclude that you don’t think concepts exist. Yet, clearly, we all have a concept of **Triskadecamus** ’s gausopheme. There is a dim light trying to illuminate my mind concerning your idea of relationships and properties. Would it be correct to say that a concept is a property of the mental activities that created it? Is this a property in the same way that “red” is a property of my hair? Red exists only when my brain evaluates the stimulus of light striking the cones and rods in my, or another observer’s, eye. But if properties exist, where do they exist? In nebulous, ether world of non-material reality? Or does non-material reality only exist while being observed or comptemplated? ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/187 "2001-11-02T17:56:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > This is the part I have difficulty understanding. You say that concepts are non-material. _(or did I misunderstand)_ You also say that there is no non-material part of the universe. Therefore, I must conclude that you don’t think concepts exist. Yet, clearly, we all have a concept of **Triskadecamus** ’s gausopheme. These, the gausopheme type of thought, are the kinds of thoughts that exist only as chemical/electrical patterns in our brains and our reactions to them. > [@](#): > > There is a dim light trying to illuminate my mind concerning your idea of relationships and properties. Would it be correct to say that a concept is a property of the mental activities that created it? No. The mental activities do have properties and these properties could be called concepts I suppose. I think concept is an odd term to use for this discussion because it implies an agent of conception. Properties do not require an agent, but agents may discover or conceive of properties. If an agent conceives of a property, does that make the property a concept? Was it a concept before it was conceived of? See? A confusing term. > [@](#): > > Is this a property in the same way that “red” is a property of my hair? Red exists only when my brain evaluates the stimulus of light striking the cones and rods in my, or another observer’s, eye. It is a property of your hair that it reflects and absorbs light in a certain way. We can perceive this through vision. We describe our perception with the word “red”. > [@](#): > > But if properties exist, where do they exist? In nebulous, ether world of non-material reality? Or does non-material reality only exist while being observed or comptemplated? Go back to my example of the set of even numbers. That’s the best I can do to explain this. Maybe someone else can do better. ---
**Author:** ![VileOrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9e8a1a/32.png) [@VileOrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VileOrb)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/188 "2001-11-02T19:56:51Z")
Some quotes from **Encyclopedia Britannica** that I thought might be useful. On what materialism is: > [@](#): > > The view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them. On how science supports Materialism: > [@](#): > > Looking at science generally, one expects ultimate laws to relate simple entities, such as fundamental particles. A physical–mental law, however, would have to refer to something very complex—a brain process involving perhaps millions of neurons, with each neuron being itself an almost fantastically complex entity. There would be a multitude of physical–mental laws, which would look like excrescences on the face of science. I love that! “Excrescences on the face of science”! I can hardly believe that an encyclopedia would word it that way. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/189 "2001-11-02T22:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **I’m still stuck trying to wrap my brain around an existence that is ontologically meaningless yet includes observers whose observations _are_ meaningful — but not material!** Why does existence need to have meaning? Existence just IS. What’s the meaning of a cup of coffee? > [@](#): > > **The brain itself is material, but it produces ghosts (concepts) that aren’t.** **Lib** , do you know the difference between _concrete_ and _abstract_? > [@](#): > > **These observers are part of the existence, one presumes, and yet they are like the wind, neither here nor there, incorporeal and yet material.** Where did any materialst say that on this thread? > [@](#): > > \*\*Predications without agency. It is all mystical beyond anything I’ve ever seen in theology. \*\* No, what’s mystical is the notion that everything needs an intelligent creator. Materialsim says that not all material objects need creators in order to come into existence. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2001, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392/190 "2001-11-04T02:01:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\*From you experiment, I gather that concepts are not material. But then the question is, does the concept exist? > > If yes, then in a Materialist worldview, it must be measurable. How? By changes in Lib’s brain chemistry or neural network while is is conceiving of the concept?\*\* Concepts need not be directly “measurable” to be materialistic. In my definition given early on in this thread… > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ambushed_ > **Materialism is most of all the assertion that the primary constituents of reality are material entities. It is the view that anything that is real is either a material entity or _is a form or function or action of a material entity_.** Thus, since concepts are “a form or function or action of a material entity” (i.e., the brain), concepts are materialistic in this sense. They need not be measured directly. For example, a magnetic field is not measured directly, yet I don’t think anyone could legitimately claim that magnetic fields are not materialistic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-metaphysics-of-materialism/88392.md?page=9)