if something can be reduced to matter, then matter is all that is real, right? If thinking really is the output of neurotransmitters, as materialists say, then the neural chemicals and their reactions are what is real, whereas thinking is derivate from that, is it not? — Wayfarer
materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, 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.
I'm not a reductionist, so why do you ask? I've already disputed your premise, sir, which is why your question is again a non sequitur. Make the case that 'methodological materialism' is necessarily reductionist as you often assert without argument that it is. Absent this, you're just torching strawmen over and over again, Wayf. Sure, some scientists do believe so and are reductionists, but many who are philosophically literate – cognizant of the philosophical / methodological distinction I've already pointed out – do not practice their sciences on a substantially reductive basis.Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? — Wayfarer
Nonphysicalism: Some things are nonphysical.
Nonphysical: That which can't be detected/perceived by our senses/instruments?
— Agent Smith
What about numbers? What about physical laws, like the laws of motion? These are predictive, and the predictions based on them are tested against observation. But in what sense do they exist? Is the probability wave physical, mathematical, epistemological or ontological? (Don’t try and and answer that, because it’s still an open question.) — Wayfarer
If so, I'd say that you suffer from the prejudice, "that the natural world is all which exists". — Metaphysician Undercover
As a source, look up artificial in the dictionary — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think naturalism and materialism are necessarily synonymous. In practice, naturalism often ends up meaning commitment to natural science as the only reliable source of knowledge. The problem then becomes what is considered as natural or part of nature — Wayfarer
'Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature', said Augustine. — Wayfarer
Make the case that 'methodological materialism' is necessarily reductionist — 180 Proof
materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, 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.
In other words we need to redefine existence to accommodate them. — Agent Smith
Augustine almost got it right here but remember he accepted an awful lot of unjustifiable nonsense too, — Tom Storm
In other words we need to redefine existence to accommodate them.
— Agent Smith
Bingo, you win the lucky door prize. Now go ahead and redefine existence, check in when you're done — Wayfarer
Original sin is one of his too. But yes, let's not debate Augustine. — Tom Storm
(Thanks for your response to the topic. Although I cannot consider it as a reply to the topic! :smile:)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
It's a bit sketchy, smith. Where'd you study philosophy, from fortune cookies? — Wayfarer
I would add, however, that there's a venerable tradition in which 'God' is real, but does not exist. See this OP. — Wayfarer
of course. You mightn't like it, but I think it says something interesting in the context. — Wayfarer
(Thanks for your response to the topic.)"Should we better then avoid talking ...?"
Yes. If that is the issue we want to discuss. — ssu
My proposal is to differentiate ‘what is real’ from ‘what exists’, with the latter as a subset of the former — Wayfarer
(Thanks for your response to the topic.)Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. — god must be atheist
I could well accept this, but from my experience, there are very few among them who say and/or admit that."Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical?" — Alkis Piskas
Nobody knows that, and that's the current state of knowledge. It happens. That's all that the materialists can say. — god must be atheist
No, not for any in your list! :smile:Do you have good evidence for any well-known supernatural beliefs - disembodied consciousness, god, ... — Tom Storm
True.[Re the term 'supernatural] "words in this area are often loaded and people's reactions to them often say more than the terms themselves." — Tom Storm
I see. Maybe as a way of avoiding the hard term "materialism"? (OK, this was a shot!)Naturalism is the term most educated skeptics and atheist philosophers would use. — Tom Storm
OK, I can accept this. Although I'm telling "too long", etc. but in combination with what I have said in similar cases, that it is quite evident that scientists look in the wrong direction and using the wrong tools. To the extent that somethimes fool themselves. Example: Some time ago, I watched a video on the examination of the reactions of a person to images presented to him on a screen by monitoringing his brain, after having opened a part of the skull and using electrodes to measure the current that it was produced. And I thought, are they so naive? Is this the way they are going to explain who the human mind works? Of course the brain reacts to external stimuli! This is known since eons ago! But this is all the brain does: it reacts! It receives and sends signals.Knowledge takes as long as it takes. Uncovering knowledge does not run to a timetable. — Tom Storm
I'm not any of them either! :smile: But at the moment I feel fine with the partial --but still usable and generally reliable-- knowledge I have on these matters. I will consider contacting any of them if I'm going to pass exams or write a paper on the subject! :grin:I'm not a neuroscientist or philosopher so you are best asking someone with real expertise. — Tom Storm
I'm not a reductionist, so why do you ask? — 180 Proof
Most of these debates end up arguing about what constitutes evidence. — Tom Storm
I understand this but semantics are not my thing. We are talking about the paranormal or extramundane, not the difference between a cliff face and a brick wall. — Tom Storm
Emoticons and ad homs. How can I deal with such rhetorical firepower? — Wayfarer
See, the second definition has a flaw: It implies or may be taken to mean that something physical (matter) can create something non-physical. How can this be possible? Something physical can only participate in the creation of something non-physical by something non-physical. For example, consciousness (non-physical) needs the brain and other parts of the body (physical) to create a sensation, perception, experience, etc. for the person. Thus observation, thought, emotion, states of mind, etc. are created, which are non-physical. — Alkis Piskas
I see the point.This is the issue which Mr. Storm's proposed switch from "materialism" to "naturalism" makes clearer to us — Metaphysician Undercover
Agree.So the proposition that the material world creates, or produces intention is completely backward and unjustifiable as inconsistent with the evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
:up: This part is quite inspiring!The evidence is very clear that the awesome power of human intention introduces something new to the material world, which was not there before.
... — Metaphysician Undercover
When we consider the reality of artificial things, in contrast with natural things, we see that human intention adds something to the material world, in this act which we describe as creative. Simple appeal to "the forces of nature" cannot account for the changes which the human mind have imposed onto the material world. These awesome changes are all around us, and we cannot ignore the fact that they are evidence of a great power. — Metaphysician Undercover
For example, an atheist might observe the material world, and conclude that there is no evidence of God, while a theologist would say that the material world itself is evidence of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
The former assuming there is nothing beyond what is directly experienced, the latter assuming that there must be a cause of what is experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover
What you describe is (a kind of) reductionism, and that's never been my position. In the philosophy of mind, my position is non-reductive physicalism, or, more precisely, enactivism (a mode embodied cognitivism, which itself goes back to e.g. Hume, Freddy Z, Peirce-Dewey, Witty, P. Bourdieu, et al) whereby mind-ing is what CNS-brains self-reflexively do with environmental inputs. In other words, "mind" is an emergent process (e.g. D. Hofstadter, T. Metzinger, A. Damasio), the cognitive functions of which supervene on a 'sufficiently complex' physical substrate (e.g. the human neocortex-connectome). The precise algorithmic mechanics have yet to be worked out in the neurosciences and so far, speculative objections (failures of imagination) notwithstanding, there are no physical laws prohibiting the scientific closure of the apparently intractable "explanatory gap".I thought you thought that thinking, feeling, consciousnessing, etc, were things that brains do? Just like digesting is what guts do and walking is what legs do. That is to say that thinking, feeling, and other mental functions are nothing other than the actions of brains. That's a reduction isn't it? You're not reducing to structure, I get that, but you are reducing to function, no? — bert1
I like your approach to this discussion but I can't share this interpretation. — Tom Storm
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security. — Albert Einstein, Condolence letter to Norman Salit, 4 March 1950
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.