The Metaphysics of Materialism

[erislover]

You’re not the only one, Poly.

[VarlosZ]

Lib:

A man’s opinion cannot be seen. And even the modern materialist faces an insurmountable problem here, since a man’s opinion cannot be seen on LED.

No, but it can be seen on paper (or an internet message board). Of course, you’re probably referring to man’s opinion as formed and existing in the mind/brain. In the first place, who is to say that we won’t be able to view such a thing someday? More importantly: assuming for the sake of argument that we are completely ignorant of the source of a man’s opinion, why would one assume that the source is something non-physical (in other words, a type of thing of which we, being physical beings, necessarily have no conscious experience) when we can attribute the opinion to a physical process without logical contradiction?

Even after the descension of Ambushed, I’m still perplexed as to any substantive difference between strict materialism and strict mysticism. One of them says that there is something out there that is real despite all perception, apprehension, or cognition. The other says the same.

I agree with what Olentzero wrote, but I would add that the materialist and the mysticist differ in what they believe to be the nature of the “something” to which you alluded. As before, the materialist posits that the unknown something belongs to the (only) class of things to which we are accustomed: physical entities and/or forces. Conversely, the mysticist posits non-physical entities. Question: Why would you do this? Personal revelation?

To answer the obvious counter, “Why do you assume physical entities?”, I simply see no reason to posit that which is both unnecessary for the explanation of anything (to my satisfaction, naturally) and completely unheard of. Occam’s (sp?) Razor, etc.

Olentzero:

Determinism is the view that things were meant to happen as they did and that the driving force behind the events is beyond human control. . .

I’m not so sure. What you described sounds more like fatalism to me (i.e., the belief that our choices have no bearing on our future, which is already set). I would say (off the top of my head) that determinism is the belief that human actions (and everything else, incidentally) are pre-determined. Usually, determinists hold that things are pre-determined by the motion of particles and energy, not by a non-physical entity such as God, “fate,” or “the mind.” Materialism, thus, does suggest determinism (as there is nothing but pre-existing states of matter and energy, bound to go where momentum takes them) so long as there are no truly random processes in the physical universe (which there may or may not be, from what I understand).

Of course, none of this is to say that determinism is incompatible with free will (despite ambushed’s statement to the contrary).

[ObiWan]

Lib,

Originally posted by Libertarian
Saying that you can see a man’s opinion by looking at graphs of his brain waves is like saying that you can see the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter.

Not from a Materialists[sup]1[/sup] point of view. To a Materialist everything to do with consciousness manifests itself in the physical world - by definition. Not just the “brain waves” that cause thought but the whole shebang; the thought itself must exist in the physical world. And if everything connected with consciousness exists in the physical world then we should be able to measure it and learn to ‘read’ thoughts.

You are right that you can’t see the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter alone because there is much more to a poem than just its rhyme and meter but to a Materialist there is nothing more to consciousness than that that exists in the physical world. That is where the analogy breaks down because you can find the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter and everything else to do with it (e.g. the author’s motivation, people’s reactions etc); just as we will be able to ‘read’ thoughts when we can measure everything connected with consciousness (and this ability to measure everything connected with consciousness is a theoretically achievable goal with Materialism).

Originally posted by Olentzero
Hmm… I think my position would be more that I do not accept some sort of “outside” influence - in other words, completely undetectable by any sort of instrumentation whatsoever - as an explanation for the cause of a material phenomenon. In short, objects and events that are detectable are caused or created by other objects and/or forces that are themselves detectable, whether or not we have the means to detect them at present.

Emphasis mine.

Olentzero,

Originally posted by Olentzero
Opinions and thoughts govern actions, and as such have material consequences.

Given these two statement I don’t see how this next one can follow:

Originally posted by Olentzero
Opinions, like thoughts, cannot be seen, it is true.

Unless you mean:

Opinions, like thoughts, cannot be seen, yet.

All,
If I have misunderstood the nature of Materialism then I hope someone will help put me straight.
[sup]1[/sup] See Mars Horizon’s definition.

[Liberal]

Varlos

No, but it can be seen on paper (or an internet message board). Of course, you’re probably referring to man’s opinion as formed and existing in the mind/brain. In the first place, who is to say that we won’t be able to view such a thing someday? More importantly: assuming for the sake of argument that we are completely ignorant of the source of a man’s opinion, why would one assume that the source is something non-physical (in other words, a type of thing of which we, being physical beings, necessarily have no conscious experience) when we can attribute the opinion to a physical process without logical contradiction?

Materialism fails to deal with the emergence of opinion as a significant phenomenon.

---

Obi

Not from a Materialists1 point of view. To a Materialist everything to do with consciousness manifests itself in the physical world - by definition. Not just the “brain waves” that cause thought but the whole shebang; the thought itself must exist in the physical world. And if everything connected with consciousness exists in the physical world then we should be able to measure it and learn to ‘read’ thoughts.

Let’s give you maximum quarter. Let’s say that you already have learned to “read thoughts”. You peer into Gaudere’s mind and find this: ‘…I wish he would speak to me…’. Having lifted this thought as it emerges from her synaptic discharges, what do you know of its meaning in the context of her morality?

You are right that you can’t see the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter alone because there is much more to a poem than just its rhyme and meter but to a Materialist there is nothing more to consciousness than that that exists in the physical world. That is where the analogy breaks down because you can find the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter and everything else to do with it (e.g. the author’s motivation, people’s reactions etc); just as we will be able to ‘read’ thoughts when we can measure everything connected with consciousness (and this ability to measure everything connected with consciousness is a theoretically achievable goal with Materialism).

But you’re going in circles. You presumed that consciousness frames the whole context of a person’s opinion. You came right back to your axiom. That’s a no-no.

---

Olentzero

Opinions, like thoughts, cannot be seen, it is true. But that in no way disproves materialism. Opinions and thoughts govern actions, and as such have material consequences.

But in that context, Materialism does not predispose of God’s existence, given that God’s will has material consequences.

Additionally, opinions and thoughts do not come into one’s head from outside of reality, but are the results of previous experiences and situations. Materialism does not say that opinions and thoughts can be seen (though the brain activity behind them certainly can be), but that they have material origins.

Then Materialism has failed to establish its own premise as true. The processes of the brain can be interpreted either way:

I hasten to add that as far as the patient is concerned, whatever changes have occurred are authentic — sometimes even desirable — and the physician has no right, really, to attribute a value label to such esoteric embellishments of personality. On what basis does one decide whether a mystical experience is normal or abnormal? There is a common tendency to equate “unusual” or “rare” with abnormal, but this is a logical fallacy. Genius is a rare but highly valued trait, whereas tooth decay is common but obviously undesirable. Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experience in any way “inferior” to the more mundave truth that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence — the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion — to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. By way of analogy, consider the fact that most animals don’t have the receptors or neural machinery for color vision. Only a privileged few do, yet would you want to conclude from this that color wasn’t real? Obviously not, but if not, then why doesn’t the same argument apply to God? Perhaps only the “chosen” ones have the required neural connections. (After all, “God works in mysterious ways.”) My goal as a scientist, in other words, is to discover how and why religious sentiments originate in the brain, but this has no bearing one way or the other on whether God really exists or not.

— Phantoms in the Brain, V.S. Ramachandran, MD, PhD

---

Orb

Visible ghosts would be at least partially material, but they have not been shown to exist. A Materialist learns about his environment building upon previous knowledge and proceding logically. Where Mysiticists get their ideas of reality I couldn’t tell you, but can only guess that dreams, drugs, and myth may play a part.

But aren’t dreams and drugs, and whatever were the origins of the myth — aren’t these part of experience as well? Is one experience less valid than another? If so, what makes your own experience the valid one?

[ObiWan]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Obi

Not from a Materialists1 point of view. To a Materialist everything to do with consciousness manifests itself in the physical world - by definition. Not just the “brain waves” that cause thought but the whole shebang; the thought itself must exist in the physical world. And if everything connected with consciousness exists in the physical world then we should be able to measure it and learn to ‘read’ thoughts.

Let’s give you maximum quarter. Let’s say that you already have learned to “read thoughts”. You peer into Gaudere’s mind and find this: ‘…I wish he would speak to me…’. Having lifted this thought as it emerges from her synaptic discharges, what do you know of its meaning in the context of her morality?

‘Reading thoughts’ is probably misleading as a term (“oh no”, you gasp, “another blasted poster changing their words” :), minus points to ObiWan I know, but they don’t quite seem to be articulating my thoughts well enough. May I try another way? My changing of words is more a reflection on my command of the English language than an attempt to twist what I’ve said (no honestly :)))

I don’t mean reading them as language, as in “…I wish he would speak to me…” but reading the whole ‘thought’, the whole experience, the whole state of mind, which would include all of its meaning in the context of her morality. A thought is not just the language. Does this better describe where I am coming from?

*Originally posted by Libertarian *

You are right that you can’t see the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter alone because there is much more to a poem than just its rhyme and meter but to a Materialist there is nothing more to consciousness than that that exists in the physical world. That is where the analogy breaks down because you can find the meaning of a poem by studying its rhyme and meter and everything else to do with it (e.g. the author’s motivation, people’s reactions etc); just as we will be able to ‘read’ thoughts when we can measure everything connected with consciousness (and this ability to measure everything connected with consciousness is a theoretically achievable goal with Materialism).

But you’re going in circles. You presumed that consciousness frames the whole context of a person’s opinion. You came right back to your axiom. That’s a no-no.

Apologies. Can you elaborate a little so I can try again (especially “consciousness frames the whole context of a person’s opinion” bit.) I think I have got a response but I want to make sure I don’t make the same mistake again.

This is exactly the sort of stuff I like debating, no thinking about, and would like to know more. If anyone could recommend some good sources of reference on this topic I would be most grateful.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by ObiWan *
I don’t mean reading them as language, as in “…I wish he would speak to me…” but reading the whole ‘thought’, the whole experience, the whole state of mind, which would include all of its meaning in the context of her morality. A thought is not just the language. Does this better describe where I am coming from?

I suppose it does, but how is your position any better? That is, how will you interpret the “whole context” that you have lifted from Gaudere’s mind without the bias of your own context destroying it? Do Materialists maintain that there is some sort of objective subjectivism?

Apologies. Can you elaborate a little so I can try again (especially “consciousness frames the whole context of a person’s opinion” bit.) I think I have got a response but I want to make sure I don’t make the same mistake again.

This is exactly the sort of stuff I like debating, no thinking about, and would like to know more. If anyone could recommend some good sources of reference on this topic I would be most grateful.

Nonsense. You’re doing fine. The best book I’ve seen on consciousness is Consciousness Explained, by Daniel Clement Dennett. Even so, it leaves you like Chinese noodles do, not quite sure what you’ve eaten, a bit bloaty, and still hungry.

With respect to my interpretation of your assertion, it seemed to me that you were saying that there is nothing more to an opinion than its emergence from conscious, whereas I maintain that there is a continuity, without quanta, of thought from inspiration to expression, resulting in a gestalt that is not accounted for by material things. It is on the inspiration side where Materialism is particularly weak.

[VileOrb]

Lib

But aren’t dreams and drugs, and whatever were the origins of the myth — aren’t these part of experience as well? Is one experience less valid than another? If so, what makes your own experience the valid one?

I think it has been sufficiently shown that what people might perceive while dreaming or on the right sort of drugs is only real in the sense that there really are the right chemicals, electrons, and such buzzing around in the perceiver’s brain to make that brain record it as experience. If I’m in an auditorium full of people, and I have somehow altered my brain chemistry, and I see slobbering vampire goats attacking but no one else does, and then later it can be shown that there is no evidence of a vampire goat attack, then the attack did not happen. My memory of the attack may still remain, but the attack itself never happened.

Lib I’ve had hallucinations. At the moment they were occuring, I suspected they were hallucinations because extremely unlikely things appeared to be happening. Regardless of how real they seemed to be, I doubted them. It would be much harder to detect illusions that are more in the realm of possibility, or illusions that someone had previously prepared you to believe. That’s one of the reasons we must so carefully examine our beliefs. And why we must carefully test our theories.

This is why when I say detectable or measurable or explicable, and you ask repeatedly, “By who?” I don’t answer as you would like. In many cases, I would trust a camera more than a witness. In others, the camera is suspect.

“Sufficiently advanced science cannot be discerned from magic”
“Sufficiently advanced magic cannot be discerned from science”
“A previously rigged demonstration cannot be discerned from magic”

Or something like that. And I have no idea who said these things first.

In controlled situations, we can discern a lot. Once we have determined some general rules by which the universe operates consistently, then we can use our knowledge of those rules to help us detect errors in our own perception as well as others. When we find something which repeatedly defies these rules, then we must test it under controlled circumstances and perhaps change our understanding of the rules. Some things are difficult to reproduce in a controlled manner. We do the best we can. We must, at least, observe them very closely. If they cannot be observed at all, then I see no reason to think they exist. Some things, perhaps, we can only observe by their effects on other things. Still, we should do our best to examine these phenomenon and describe them as best we can. I see no reason to believe that any phenomena are caused by non-material forces or objects. Material forces and objects follow rules. Some people seem to want to call the rules themselves non-material entities (or objects or something). I wouldn’t call them entities at all, only relationships between entities.

[VileOrb]

Lib

With respect to my interpretation of your assertion, it seemed to me that you were saying that there is nothing more to an opinion than its emergence from conscious, whereas I maintain that there is a continuity, without quanta, of thought from inspiration to expression, resulting in a gestalt that is not accounted for by material things. It is on the inspiration side where Materialism is particularly weak.

Whereas I maintain that that gestalt is perfectly accounted for by material things.

Don’t you have a pit thread going about a guy who made these kinds of assertions without giving a basis. If you want people who have little experience in speaking about this stuff to participate effectively, you gotta give examples or something to explain yourself. Examples help all of us, I would say.

What is it that you think is not explained? That people have apparent sudden flashes of insight? I don’t see why this can’t be purely material. Epiphanies have been researched fairly extensively and are recognized as a physical phenomena. Are you just saying that you’ve had inspiration that appears to be supernatural to you? What exactly are you saying? You keep maintaining that there is something that Materialism can’t explain and I keep getting the feeling that the thing you wish to have explained does not actually exist at all. Materialism does not explain God. Why should it? It is on the logical side that Christianity is particularly weak.

(Sorry to use your own tactics against you here Lib, but you really need to see that statements like, “It is on the inspiration side where Materialism is particularly weak.” don’t add to this discussion. I will refrain from such comments in the future if you will as well.)

[Liberal]

Originally posted by VileOrb *
In controlled situations, we can discern a lot. Once we have determined some general rules by which the universe operates consistently, then we can use our knowledge of those rules to help us detect errors in our own perception as well as others. When we find something which repeatedly defies these rules, then we must test it under controlled circumstances and perhaps change our understanding of the rules. Some things are difficult to reproduce in a controlled manner. We do the best we can. We must, at least, observe them very closely. If they cannot be observed at all, then I see no reason to think they exist. Some things, perhaps, we can only observe by their effects on other things. Still, we should do our best to examine these phenomenon and describe them as best we can. I see no reason to believeat any phenomena ** caused* by non-material forces or objects. Material forces and objects follow rules. Some people seem to want to call the rules themselves non-material entities (or objects or something). I wouldn’t call them entities at all, only relationships between entities.

Sorry about the mangling of your post, but it is a convenient way to illustrate my problem with what all of you Materialists (with the exception, of course, of Ambushed) are saying every time you say something.

If you don’t mind, please qualify each bolded predicate with an agent, and explain why that agent is both significant and nonarbitrary. Also, please qualify the agents you’ve implied or identified in each italicized clause or phrase by explaining why the agent you chose is both significant and nonarbitrary.

Here’s what I mean. You speak of control, for example, as in controlled situations. What is the agency of control? And be careful here, because you don’t want to paint yourself into a corner. If you say that the agency is what you’ve perceived as either entities or relations among entities, then we are going to have to go to origin. Once there, I’ll ask you this question: how can something have arisen from nothing when nothingness implies the absence of any mechanism by which something can arise?

The prickly thorn in all this, to me, is that y’all keep speaking of an objective reality, completely contextualized by material entities, and yet you cannot seem to disassociate from that reality the very observations and agencies of observation that you insist don’t matter. I’m not trying to be obstinate here. I just haven’t yet had this point answered ever since Ambushed flew into a fit over my having questioned him.

[Liberal]

Epiphanies have been researched fairly extensively and are recognized as a physical phenomena.

All I can do is refer you to Ramachandran’s quote above.

[VileOrb]

Lib Essentially what I get from the quote you refer to is that, because God works in Mysterious ways, anything we don’t understand could be used as evidence of God’s presence. This is, IMO, nonsense. Do I really have to explain why?

Additionally, a researcher pointing out that he isn’t trying to disprove God so he can continue to get funding, doesn’t carry much weight with me. (I’m guessing here but that’s the impression the quote gave me.)

Ever solve a rubik’s cube or some other similar puzzle? You fiddle with it for a time and bits of the solution become apparent as you see how the patterns develop. You try out different theories and maybe you have a bit of inspiration that turns out to be a key in the solution. Where did that inspiration come from? I say it came from your brain putting together all it’s experience with spacial relations combined with all the data it’s picked up from the initial fiddling and some angle of observation occurring at the right moment, and it all fits together nicely, each piece of evidence seeming to reinforce the others so that everything is obvious when a moment before it was not. It’s a great moment. Sometimes upon experiment you find that it doesn’t work and that all your feeling of correctness was in error. Sometimes it’s all exactly right and further experimentation leads quickly to more inspirations which cascade into a final, working solution to the puzzle. Nothing unexplained here.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**I suppose my first questions to materialists, in general, that I think might help at least to establish to what degree you are a materialist, would be these:

1. Do you deny the existence of anything and everything that cannot be (presently) measured (or evidenced by proxy), and if not, what is the metaphysical nature of what you will allow to exist?

2. Is man’s cognition the only cognition that apprehends reality? Is a monkey’s cognition, or a snail’s cognition invalid?

3. Given that man might evolve such that his progeny will have an even more powerful brain, will reality then have changed if that creature is able to perceive more than his ancestors? **

1. The world we perceive with our physical senses (aided or unaided with scientific instruments) is all that there is. (Our physical senses are part of reality. It’s part of reality trying to sense the remainder of reality.)

2. Man’s cognition is not the only cognition there is. But, being more complex and sophisticated, it does a far better job of “apprehending” reality than do the cognitions of a chimpanzee and a snail. If there are any cognitions more sophisticated than Man’s, I’d bet my last dollar they are non-human but as mortal as we.

3. Of course not; how absurd. Reality exists whether there are billions to “apprehend” it or none. (Reality existed even before there were people, right?) The degree of the ability to “apprehend” reality does not alter reality. Perception of reality may change, but not reality itself. For example, our ability to study a distant star or planet does not change the nature of said star or planet in the tiniest bit. (How could it?) However, when observing an animal, the presence of the observer affects the animal because the animal senses the observer and adjusts its behavior accordingly. Unless stars are intelligent (and can sense our observations), they aren’t going to change their behaviors in response to our observing them.

Is this what you were looking for?

[VileOrb]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *

If you don’t mind, please qualify each bolded predicate with an agent, and explain why that agent is both significant and nonarbitrary. Also, please qualify the agents you’ve implied or identified in each italicized clause or phrase by explaining why the agent you chose is both significant and nonarbitrary.

Here’s what I mean. You speak of control, for example, as in controlled situations. What is the agency of control? And be careful here, because you don’t want to paint yourself into a corner. If you say that the agency is what you’ve perceived as either entities or relations among entities, then we are going to have to go to origin. Once there, I’ll ask you this question: how can something have arisen from nothing when nothingness implies the absence of any mechanism by which something can arise?

The prickly thorn in all this, to me, is that y’all keep speaking of an objective reality, completely contextualized by material entities, and yet you cannot seem to disassociate from that reality the very observations and agencies of observation that you insist don’t matter. I’m not trying to be obstinate here. I just haven’t yet had this point answered ever since Ambushed flew into a fit over my having questioned him. **

No. You don’t get it. By controlled experiment I mean an experiment that is insulated as much as currently possible from outside influences and such things as the opportunity for someone to rig it. By focusing on a small pieces of the universe, bit by bit, it is easier to understand than to try to understand it all in one big gulp. By eliminating the effects of many forces that we do have some understanding of, we can then make better observations of the object in question. We are a part of the universe that we seek to understand. EVERYTHING is a part of the universe we seek to understand.

If you have a pizza with some sausage on it, you eat a piece and taste an unfamiliar spice. Is the spice in the sauce or the sausage? It’s tough to tell, so you pick off a piece of sausage and wipe the sauce off and see how it tastes. Still not conclusive because the spice flavor could be cooked through at this point but still you have a better chance now of figuring it out.

We can not, currently, know perfectly what objective reality is, but we can work toward that knowledge by learning how to better control such experiments.

Of course I don’t disassociate the observations and agents of observation from reality. I am assuming they they are, or could be, real.

And again you bring up the origin question. And again I say that there was no origin. All matter/energy has always existed in one material form or another. Always. There is/was/will-be no reason, no cause, no justification, no source, no origin, no start, no ultimate beginning.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by VileOrb *
Lib Essentially what I get from the quote you refer to is that, because God works in Mysterious ways, anything we don’t understand could be used as evidence of God’s presence. This is, IMO, nonsense. Do I really have to explain why?

I think you missed Dr. Ramachandran’s point, Orb. And I’ll take the blame for that since you weren’t privvy to the rest of the chapter. He’s saying that one side might argue that because awareness and expression of things spiritual can be traced to the limbic system, that is evidence that spirituality is manufactured by the brain, and thus that God does not exist. The other side, however, is equally on sound footing to argue that the limbic system is merely how the spirit communicates with our brain, and thus is evidence that God exists.

Additionally, a researcher pointing out that he isn’t trying to disprove God so he can continue to get funding, doesn’t carry much weight with me. (I’m guessing here but that’s the impression the quote gave me.)

Wow, what a leap. Interesting especially in light of the many agencies brought to bear in an ontology where agency is allegedly irrelevant.

Ever solve a rubik’s cube or some other similar puzzle? You fiddle with it for a time and bits of the solution become apparent as you see how the patterns develop. You try out different theories and maybe you have a bit of inspiration that turns out to be a key in the solution. Where did that inspiration come from? I say it came from your brain putting together all it’s experience with spacial relations combined with all the data it’s picked up from the initial fiddling and some angle of observation occurring at the right moment, and it all fits together nicely, each piece of evidence seeming to reinforce the others so that everything is obvious when a moment before it was not. It’s a great moment. Sometimes upon experiment you find that it doesn’t work and that all your feeling of correctness was in error. Sometimes it’s all exactly right and further experimentation leads quickly to more inspirations which cascade into a final, working solution to the puzzle. Nothing unexplained here.

Oh, I agree completely. But that is an inspiration so trivial that I don’t believe it qualifies as the sort of metaphysical inspiration we’re talking about here. That’s nothing but a brain at work. Rats and monkeys can do that.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by VileOrb *
No. You don’t get it. By controlled experiment I mean an experiment that is insulated as much as currently possible from outside influences and such things as the opportunity for someone to rig it.

Argghh! But who decides that it is insulated as much as currently possibly. Is this reality by consensus, or what? What agency is at work in the insulation?

By focusing on a small pieces of the universe, bit by bit, it is easier to understand than to try to understand it all in one big gulp. By eliminating the effects of many forces that we do have some understanding of, we can then make better observations of the object in question. We are a part of the universe that we seek to understand. EVERYTHING is a part of the universe we seek to understand.

Like I said before, the impression I get is that Materialism posits one great tautology. The universe, for the Materialist, is the “I AM”.

If you have a pizza with some sausage on it, you eat a piece and taste an unfamiliar spice. Is the spice in the sauce or the sausage? It’s tough to tell, so you pick off a piece of sausage and wipe the sauce off and see how it tastes. Still not conclusive because the spice flavor could be cooked through at this point but still you have a better chance now of figuring it out.

Yeah, I’m with you here, and I concur.

We can not, currently, know perfectly what objective reality is, but we can work toward that knowledge by learning how to better control such experiments.

That paradigm, but for trivial differences in implementation detail, is astonishingly identical to the claim of the Mysticist. He cannot know reality now, but by working toward that knowledge with experiments controlled by unidentified agents, he can hope to find the truth.

Of course I don’t disassociate the observations and agents of observation from reality. I am assuming they they are, or could be, real.

Well, I guess I am never to be told who they are, those agents who do all this observing, controlling, and establishing of what’s right and what ain’t. I can resign myself to that.

But there still remains the question of how these agents, whoever or whatever they are, experience reality without a bias. In other words, because reality is identifiable only by the brain’s senses, reality is only in the brain. Your senses (and especially your cognition of your senses) aren’t “out there”. They’re in your head.

And again you bring up the origin question. And again I say that there was no origin. All matter/energy has always existed in one material form or another. Always. There is/was/will-be no reason, no cause, no justification, no source, no origin, no start, no ultimate beginning.

Obviously, you would have to say that, despite not having a shred of hard evidence. I’m beginning to wonder whether Materialism and Mysticism are not two coordinate sets referencing the same place.

[xenophon41]

The prickly thorn in all this, to me, is that y’all keep speaking of an objective reality, completely contextualized by material entities, and yet you cannot seem to disassociate from that reality the very observations and agencies of observation that you insist don’t matter.

Lib, I’m sure others will address this better than I, but I wonder how you expect materialists, mysticists or any -ists to conduct a discussion regarding the nature of reality without including epistemological approaches based on observation? The very nature of discourse is predicated on exchanges of information between consciousnesses, which information must be garnered and communicated through observation and perception.

The only reason agencies of observation “matter” is because we are perceptive; the fact that a philosophy is dependent on having a philosopher does not mean that reality is dependent on having those philosophers! It is no more contradictory to say that reality is not dependent on observation than it is to say that our own conception of reality is dependent on it.

That paradigm, but for trivial differences in implementation detail, is astonishingly identical to the claim of the Mysticist. He cannot know reality now, but by working toward that knowledge with experiments controlled by unidentified agents, he can hope to find the truth.

I think you are… almost right. Where the mystical approach is phenomenological, with the mystic working his way toward “truth” through spiritual experimentation, the materialist seeks understanding using experiential data and empirical demonstration. Thus, the mystic is more concerned with subjective reality, where the materialist seeks evidence of an objective reality. (Both may receive equally subjective results, but they are pursuing radically different ends.)

[VileOrb]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Argghh! But who decides that it is insulated as much as currently possibly. Is this reality by consensus, or what? What agency is at work in the insulation?

Whoever is doing the seeking and researching does the best job they can. That may be me or you or some alien creature. The point that you ARE being obstinate about is that it doesn’t matter who or what the agent is only that such an agent could possibly exist. The point is that, though some parts of the universe may be undetectable by humans right now because they are too far away or inside an star or whatever, each bit of the universe is made up of matter/energy, which some theoretical agency, within this same universe and following the rules of the universe, could detect. The fact that I cannot currently detect that there are germs on my bum does not mean that those germs are non-material enities. Someone could, theoretically, detect them. I’m not going to allow you to check to make sure. Does that make them less real? Do you think my bum is germ free because no one can detect any germs on my bum?

Like I said before, the impression I get is that Materialism posits one great tautology. The universe, for the Materialist, is the “I AM”.

I think you’re misusing the word tautology, but maybe that’s as close as your going to get to understanding. At least until you’re more ready to take seriously any idea which doesn’t include a God.

Of course I don’t disassociate the observations and agents of observation from reality. I am assuming they they are, or could be, real.

Well, I guess I am never to be told who they are, those agents who do all this observing, controlling, and establishing of what’s right and what ain’t. I can resign myself to that.

They are material sentient beings that may or may not ever exist but who could possibly exist within the universe.

But there still remains the question of how these agents, whoever or whatever they are, experience reality without a bias. In other words, because reality is identifiable only by the brain’s senses, reality is only in the brain. Your senses (and especially your cognition of your senses) aren’t “out there”. They’re in your head.

As we understand the universe better and better it becomes more and more possible to have less and less bias. Also, multiple points of view brought together may improve the accuracy and completeness of understanding.

And again you bring up the origin question. And again I say that there was no origin. All matter/energy has always existed in one material form or another. Always. There is/was/will-be no reason, no cause, no justification, no source, no origin, no start, no ultimate beginning.

Obviously, you would have to say that, despite not having a shred of hard evidence. I’m beginning to wonder whether Materialism and Mysticism are not two coordinate sets referencing the same place. **

Every atom in the universe is my evidence.

---

From Encarta:

mys·ti·cism [míst sìzzm ] noun

1. RELIGION belief in intuitive spiritual revelation: the belief that personal communication or union with the divine is achieved through intuition, faith, ecstasy, or sudden insight rather than through rational thought
2. RELIGION spiritual system: a system of religious belief or practice that people follow to achieve personal communication or union with the divine
3. confused and vague ideas: vague or unsubstantiated thought or speculation about something

---

I don’t see anything here that remotely resembles materialism. Sounds more like Chrisitianity to me.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by VileOrb *
**

And again you bring up the origin question. And again I say that there was no origin. All matter/energy has always existed in one material form or another. Always. There is/was/will-be no reason, no cause, no justification, no source, no origin, no start, no ultimate beginning.

Obviously, you would have to say that, despite not having a shred of hard evidence. I’m beginning to wonder whether Materialism and Mysticism are not two coordinate sets referencing the same place. **

Every atom in the universe is my evidence.**

VileOrb, you’re talking to a person who believes (or once believed) that atoms aren’t real.

[Triskadecamus]

So, wondering if something imaginary could be beautiful is definitely not materialism. Now I am sure that I could imagine it to be beautiful, but I am sure that would be no improvement, from the materialistic point of view. So, I have to search about a bit for something to examine this materialistic concept of beauty.

I assume it is possible to be a materialist, and consider beauty to be worthwhile for its own sake. Perhaps that too is an error. Is it possible to create beauty? Once you have done so, does it exist? I have gathered the impression thus far, that nothing can be beautiful, then unless it is observed by an entity. Am I to suppose that once observed it then remains beautiful, or does its beauty vanish when the observation stops? Is this a characteristic specific to beauty, or are valor, humor, and other such things similarly limited? Hmmm. Is valor the creation of the valiant? What if no one wants to cross the bridge? Is Horatius then stripped of his valor? Is an image in the memory of many minds still possessed of no reality?

Forgive me an irrelevancy, but it all seems so bleak.
Poly,

Would that I could lay claim to so erudite an intent, but no, I was seeking no particular ontology, nor any religious agenda. I really am quite puzzled by this materialism. It all seems so self reliant and simultaneously self-limiting. It is, no doubt easily demonstrated to be logical, and in all probability correct, as far as things of that nature go. Correct, and logical. I suppose that is very important.

I think I shall go play the gausopheme, and think about this some more.

Tris

To whom do you attribute a thing that was never said?

[ambushed]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
And ambushed’s assertion that materialists are by definition determinists is complete and total trash. Determinism is the view that things were meant to happen as they did and that the driving force behind the events is beyond human control - a view more suited to idealism and mysticism than it is to materialism.

I won’t call that reply “complete and total trash” as you did mine, but rather that I find it to be simply mistaken.

determinism n. Determinism is the thesis that all events and states are determined by antecedent events and states of affairs… The thesis has at its core the idea that everything that happens is fully determined by what has gone before it: every event has antecedent causes which were sufficient to ensure its occurrence.

In the context of materialism, determinism is the view that all causes have material antecedent causes. Determinism and materialism are indeed inextricably bound, since traditional philosophic “free will” theory argues that all antecedent causes are NOT fully sufficient to cause a new event. That is a view I cannot accept, since it certainly implies to me a kind of non-materialistic intervention in the stream of events.

The doctrine you describe is not determinism at all, but fatalism!

fatalism n. 1) the doctrine that all human actions and indeed all events are predetermined.

I certainly am not a fatalist, and materialism certainly does not imply fatalism!

I appreciate your insightful evaluation of Libertarian’s unfair attacks on me and my position, Olentzero, and I thank you for helping me clarify and defend the position of materialism. If Lib meant what you suspect he meant, he could certainly have said so much more clearly! In any case, your reply to that point is quite salient.

I, too, am very busy and only have a little time today. I hope to return soon to this utterly fascinating thread!