So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" — Alkis Piskas
:grin:Well, there is a meaning to such talking, if wasting time qualifies as "meaning" ... — baker
So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas
The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Pp35-36
Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas
Right. I don't believe it either. Contradictions, as you say, and also ambiguities and lack of evidences --things the physicability of which is ambiguous or has not been proven-- make it very hard to believe it.This is why i don't believe that self-avowed materialists are materialists — sime
I would like to hear such a private definition ...They are smuggling their own brand of phenomenalism into their private definition of materialism whilst being in denial about it. — sime
So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas
I agree.the proposition 'anything real is material' applies an artificial closure to the extent of the unknown, which limits a person's logical capacity to the confines of one's own conception of matter, and this restricts the person's capacity to learn. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree.it is in most cases rather pointless to be talking to a materialist about materialism. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now, what is strange about "materialists" is that they talk a lot about such things as consciousness, awareness, thought, imagination, love, joy, fear, and so on, none of which has been proven to be material (physical). — Alkis Piskas
In other words, the proposition 'anything real is material' applies an artificial closure to the extent of the unknown, which limits a person's logical capacity to the confines of one's own conception of matter, and this restricts the person's capacity to learn. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's good that you brought up prejudice, — Alkis Piskas
Responsible naturalists would put it differently. They would say that the time to believe non-natural explanations - idealism, gods, reincarnation, that only consciousness exists, whatever it may be - is when there is good evidence for them. These concepts then become knowledge and presumably, a part of naturalism. There's a Noble Prize as yet unclaimed. — Tom Storm
So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning in talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"!
This is an interesting point. But then, naturalism is contrasted with supernaturalism --or, in a simpler way, natural is contrasted with supernatural-- which is not want we actually need, is it? And this rises questions like whether e.g. consciousness is natural or supernatural. If yes, it belongs to the realm of scientific methods, which I don't think have been much applied to it until today. From what I know, there are very few scientists who have been involved in the subkect of consciousness, like Menas Kafatos, Bernardo Kastrup, et al. (They do have some interesting, even exciting, ideas on the subject.) On the other hand, if we consider consciousness as something "supernatural", we enter in the field of religion --which is a very vast area, with a lot of truths but also plenty of misconceptions and other traps. Or we get into the world of angels, demons, spirits and other creepy entities! :scream:I've assumed that naturalism had replaced the term materialism — Tom Storm
Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? And even if that were possible, wouldn't that then consist an acceptance that non-physical things exist too? Which, of course, is something the scientists, materialists, physicalists, naturalists, etc. don't believe exist. Doesn't this consist a self-contradition?The six things you listed above are really one thing - the subjective experience of consciousness - and this may well be the by product of our physical brain. — Tom Storm
True.When it comes to prejudice, it resides as comfortably in the land of woo woo as it does on the continent of scientism. — Tom Storm
Me too.All this is true, at least in my own case. I prefer the concrete and physical to the abstract and immaterial. — NOS4A2
It's good that you brought up "idealism". I din't want to do it myself for not "overloading" the subject and my description of the topic!the other I can only find in the pure wind of idealist literature — NOS4A2
Yes.Should we better then avoid talking about "materialism" --since it can easily produce confusion and misunderstandings in a discussion-- and use the term "physicalism" instead? — Alkis Piskas
Idealism isn't an explanation and shouldn't be associated with superstitious beliefs in the supernatural. — sime
But then, naturalism is contrasted with supernaturalism --or, in a simpler way, natural is contrasted with supernatural-- which is not want we actually need, is it? — Alkis Piskas
No, I prefer the term "physicalism". It's much more clear and it draws a line --not always clear-- between physical and non-physical. The first one is open and offered for scientific study; the second one, for philosophical study. — Alkis Piskas
he subject of human consciousness is open for too long a time for scientists, materialists, physicalists, naturalists to come up with tangible, persuasive and workable scientific results. — Alkis Piskas
Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? — Alkis Piskas
So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" — Alkis Piskas
Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? — Alkis Piskas
Naturalism is the term most educated skeptics and atheist philosophers would use. They would generally hold to methodological naturalism - that science is the most reliable tool we can use to understand the natural world and not hold to philosophical naturalism - that the natural world is all which exists. This latter claim being too totalising and unjustifiable. — Tom Storm
if there is non-natural aspects of the world, we would probably be using something other than science to understand them, science being the means for understanding the natural aspects of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
The artificial aspects of the world are distinct from the natural aspects of the world, because they are created by human activities rather than by nature. And we know that these artificial things are not natural because they are caused through intention, which we understand through philosophy and ethics rather than science. — Metaphysician Undercover
we know that these artificial things are not natural because they are caused through intention, which we understand through philosophy and ethics rather than science. — Metaphysician Undercover
Naturally occurring versus the product of intention hence artificial - interesting. I've always assumed human activities are a subcategory of naturalism. Are you drawing on a particular source for this? — Tom Storm
:up:Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. For instance, consciousness, feelings, emotions, beliefs.
If you keep on coming up with Strawman fallacies, you can win any argument -- until you are caught doing it. — god must be atheist
'Qualia' are adaptive, cognitive outputs peculiar to the kind of CNS-brains with which natural selection has endowed us.One may assume you believe that we experience quale. Where do they come from? Not what are they - What is their source? — Real Gone Cat
Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. For instance, consciousness, feelings, emotions, beliefs.
If you keep on coming up with Strawman fallacies, you can win any argument — god must be atheist
Materialists cannot relate their perceptions of objects to their thoughts concerning 'material objects' without pain of contradiction. They are smuggling their own brand of phenomenalism into their private definition of materialism whilst being in denial about it. — sime
I've assumed that naturalism had replaced the term materialism. Naturalists generally argue that to the best of our knowledge all we can know is the product of natural processes. The six things you listed above are really one thing - the subjective experience of consciousness - and this may well be the by product of our physical brain. — Tom Storm
Nonphysicalism: Some things are nonphysical.
Nonphysical: That which can't be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments? — Agent Smith
The latter is reductive (categorical) and the former is not. "Based on matter" does not entail nothing-but-matter. A step further: "matter" – materiality – also connotes what matters publicly (i.e. distinctions which make measurable differences objectively) and not just what matters privately, imaginatively, subjectively, spiritually ... Democritus' void compensates (or covers) a few sins; to wit: "Whatever exists is based on matter" and maybe whatever else that doesn't / cannot matter in any objective sense.How is saying 'whatever exists is based on matter' different from saying 'nothing exists beside matter'? — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.