Non sequitur. I've exposed your "reductive materialism" for the strawman it is. And sorry, Wayf, no "equivocation" on my part between a denotation and a connotation. Back to the heart of the matter: rather than semantic nitpicking how about a substantive distinction and the operational implications .

Whenever I say something you don’t understand, which happens a lot, you call it a ‘non sequitur’. Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? If that is not an intelligible question, then say why it is not, instead of reverting to your usual codified nonsense, if that is even possible for you.

Also, explain to me what is a non sequitur about this statement:

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

An encyclopedia definition of materialist theory of mind:

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.

Is that also a non sequitur?

Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? — Wayfarer

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.

Apparently, sir, your comprehension on many philosophical topics is internet definitions-shallow but, given your quixotic jihad against "materialism", dive a little deeper and make the damn argument (and then, maybe, corroborate it with wikis & pictures & whatnot).

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

Numbers, laws (abstractions really) can be considered to exist but not in the same sense as a chair or a seashell. In other words we need to redefine existence to accommodate them.

Come to think of it, a chair & a seashell are but tokens of types (abstractions: chairs & seashells).

If so, I'd say that you suffer from the prejudice, "that the natural world is all which exists". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your words are interesting. "Suffer from the prejudice" I think that's a prejudicial way of putting it. :smile: No one can say that the natural wold is all that exists (yet), and I do not know the answer since key evidence is missing. Most of these debates end up arguing about what constitutes evidence.

As a source, look up artificial in the dictionary — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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

I think that's fair and I have kind of said this.

'Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature', said Augustine. — Wayfarer

As a quip, Augustine almost got it right here but remember he accepted an awful lot of unjustifiable nonsense too, so it's hardly surprising . I would restate this it Miracles are not necessarily against nature... - the time to believe is when there is good evidence. I don't really think we have a choice.

But what counts as evidence then becomes the new battleground. I generally stay out of this since disputes between irreconcilable world-views are not worth it.

Make the case that 'methodological materialism' is necessarily reductionist — 180 Proof

Didn't say anything about it. I'm not 'strawmanning' or entering 'non sequiturs' except for in your highly idiosyncratic interpretation.

Again, a very simple definition:

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.

That's the definition I'm taking issue with.

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.

Augustine almost got it right here but remember he accepted an awful lot of unjustifiable nonsense too, — Tom Storm

What will someone say about what we believe in 2000 years time?

I'm not a scholar of Augustine's works, but I've yet to read anything that he wrote about philosophy that I would consider nonsense. Of course, if I do, then I'll revise my opinion.

:eyes: :roll: :sweat: G'nite, Woofarer.

I'm not a scholar of Augustine's works, but I've yet to read anything that he wrote about philosophy that I would consider nonsense. Of course, if I do, then I'll revise my opinion. — Wayfarer

Well, a notable one would be that Yeshua ben Yosef was the son of God.

Emoticons and ad homs. How can I deal with such rhetorical firepower?

I don't expect anyone to believe it, but if that's an allusion to Jesus Christ, then I also I don't think it's 'nonsense', although I don't want to debate that point.

Original sin is one of his too. But yes, let's not debate Augustine.

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

Lets...

Begin with something easy & familiar viz. God

God
1. Exists
2. Is not perceivable/detectable with either senses/instruments.

Existence: Is an aspect of reality that's

1. Empirically provable (the physical)
and/or
2. Logically provable (the nonphysical)

What do you think? Have I made progress?

Original sin is one of his too. But yes, let's not debate Augustine. — Tom Storm

I don't much care for Augustine's interpretation of that, but then, neither do the Orthodox churches, although there needs to be a secular equivalent of 'the fall'. But let's not go there.

It's a bit sketchy, smith. Where'd you study philosophy, from fortune cookies?

I would add, however, that there's a venerable tradition in which 'God' is real, but does not exist. See this OP.

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

(Thanks for your response to the topic. Although I cannot consider it as a reply to the topic! :smile:)

You say you are young and new to philosophy, and yet you terms as "quale". So it seems you are advancing fast! :smile: I'm old in both age and philosophy and I have only known about this term a couple of years ago. (It's a very modern term, anyway. And, BTW, the plural is qualia).
I never use this term. I prefer talking simply about perception(s) and experience(s). Their quality is of secondary importance, except maybe if one lies on the chase long of a therapist. :grin: For example, what you and I feel when we see a dog is from slightly to very different. It depends on our experience(s) with dogs, our characteristics/personality, our mood, etc. Some are afraid of them, other hate them, other love them and other are indifferent. And this is what they feel when they see a dog, depending also on the circumstances.

Now, about your question, where do they come from, i.e. what is their source: Our consciousness, reality and experiences in combination with our mind (memory, mental state, etc.) .
This is what I think. But you can find a lot of answers in the Web and judge for yourself about their logic and/or validity.

It's a bit sketchy, smith. Where'd you study philosophy, from fortune cookies? — Wayfarer

:smile:

I would add, however, that there's a venerable tradition in which 'God' is real, but does not exist. See this OP. — Wayfarer

As anyone with even a single neuron for a brain would've noticed, nonphysicalism requires an overhaul of the definitions of real, existence, physicalism, etc.. There really is no other alternative.

Thanks for the link. I'll go through the article later if it's all the same to you.

of course. You mightn't like it, but I think it says something interesting in the context.

of course. You mightn't like it, but I think it says something interesting in the context. — Wayfarer

I would suggest this: Delete the word "nonexistence" from the dictionary. Instead broaden the definition of existence like Meinong did.

Kinda like getting rid of the word "violet" and renaming the color as a different shade of blue.

"Should we better then avoid talking ...?"
Yes. If that is the issue we want to discuss. — ssu

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

Yes, this is the conclusive question. But it is good to also know why! :smile:

My proposal is to differentiate ‘what is real’ from ‘what exists’, with the latter as a subset of the former.

My proposal is to differentiate ‘what is real’ from ‘what exists’, with the latter as a subset of the former — Wayfarer

:up:

Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. — god must be atheist

(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

Yes, there's this interpretation too.

"Materialism" (Philosophy) from ...
1) Oxford LEXICO: The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."
2) Merriam-Webster: "A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter." (Closer to your point.)

I can accept this definition too, but on the condition that it is not taken to mean that something physical (matter) can create something non-physical, which is impossible. Something physical can only participate in the creation of something non-physical, which is actually created by something non-physical. (I explain why below, but it only extends my point ...)

***

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.

So, if we remove this ... "impossible" possibility :smile:, what we are left with is that "matter can only create matter", i.e., "everything is matter". and this leads to the first definition of materialism that I brought up.

"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

I could well accept this, but from my experience, there are very few among them who say and/or admit that.
(I have already mentioned somewhere in this or other topic that statements like "We don't know", "It's a mystery", etc. are at least honest answers.)

(BTW, thanks for your response to the topic! :smile:)

Do you have good evidence for any well-known supernatural beliefs - disembodied consciousness, god, ... — Tom Storm

No, not for any in your list! :smile:

[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

True.

Naturalism is the term most educated skeptics and atheist philosophers would use. — Tom Storm

I see. Maybe as a way of avoiding the hard term "materialism"? (OK, this was a shot!)

Knowledge takes as long as it takes. Uncovering knowledge does not run to a timetable. — 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.
See the situation we are facing here with science? (Which, otherwise, is great in experimenting with and solving problems related to matter.)

I'm not a neuroscientist or philosopher so you are best asking someone with real expertise. — 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:

***

Thanks again for your contribution to the topic!

As it pertains to philosophy of mind, materialism is, I think, most accurately construed as synonymous with emergentism. That is, consciousness, just is (or arises from) interactions of severally non-conscious events. I think that's what every materialist probably has in common.

I'm not a reductionist, so why do you ask? — 180 Proof

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?

Most of these debates end up arguing about what constitutes evidence. — Tom Storm

Yes, that is usually the problem. It involves how we interpret what is evident to us ( i.e. the evidence). Differences in interpretation allow different people to say that the very same thing occurring is "evidence" of distinctly incompatible things. Interpretation always involves reasoning and the application of some principles, so when this varies there is variance in the conclusions drawn from the same observations. The observations are made from a different perspective'

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. The difference is in the reasoning and principles applied in the interpretation. The former assuming there is nothing beyond what is directly experienced, the latter assuming that there must be a cause of what is experienced.

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

I think that you are trying to impose a biased restriction by making this claim. You chose to replace "material" with "natural". If you did this with the intent of opposing the natural with the paranormal, so that you could leave the artificial in some vague area which is neither natural nor paranormal, then this is not an acceptable proposal.

The problem is that you described the natural as that which is best understood through empirical science, and intention does not fit into this description. Intention is best understood through moral philosophy. So the existence of a brick wall cannot be understood only through science, because science won't determine the reason why the brick wall is there. This is why social science developed out of moral philosophy, and not from natural philosophy like the science of nature did. Therefore we cannot class the social sciences with the natural sciences because they use different standards as to what sort of principles may be applied in interpretation, the former being derived from moral philosophy, the latter being derived from natural philosophy. And as explained above, such differences in interpretive principles produce vastly different conclusions.

Emoticons and ad homs. How can I deal with such rhetorical firepower? — Wayfarer

180 seems to have great difficulty with the English language.

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

This is the issue which Mr. Storm's proposed switch from "materialism" to "naturalism" makes clearer to us. 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.

So the proposition that the material world creates, or produces intention is completely backward and unjustifiable as inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence is very clear that the awesome power of human intention introduces something new to the material world, which was not there before. It is completely illogical to turn back to the material world, and try to see how intention came from the material world, and how the material world endowed it with such power, when it's very clear that intention is bringing something into the material world which was not already there. That's what the evidence of the artificial shows us, that intention creates something new. Therefore we have to look to some place other than the material world to see where intention comes from, to find out what enables it with the capacity to give to the material world something which it did not already have. This "place" where we need to look is the immaterial.

This is the issue which Mr. Storm's proposed switch from "materialism" to "naturalism" makes clearer to us — Metaphysician Undercover

I see the point.

So the proposition that the material world creates, or produces intention is completely backward and unjustifiable as inconsistent with the evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree.

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

:up: This part is quite inspiring!
"Intention" is indeed very important in all that we are talking about. I mention it quite often, in general, but I just missed bringing it up in this thread. Thanks for doing it youself and in such a nice way! :smile:

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

I like your approach to this discussion but I can't share this interpretation. The natural world has animals in it. They behave and do things. We can readily observe and explain this. Birds make nests. People make walls and houses. Not sure why we must accept intentionality (behaviour) as evidence of an enchanted world. Christians apologists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are fond of this argument - via Anselm, I guess. This is a complex philosophical idea which is unsettled, so I will accept this point as a matter for further exploration.

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

The big difference is that the former follows principles of skepticism. The latter makes an unjustifiable jump from an extant world to God. Why God? Everything you argue could apply to the role of aliens in a creation story. Why could you not argue that aliens created the world using this reasoning?

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

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 like your approach to this discussion but I can't share this interpretation. — Tom Storm

Agree with you on that. My 'naturalistic' intepretation is that the emergence of life just is the emergence of intentional consciousness, albeit in rudimentary form. As soon as living things emerge, they begin to display the attributes of goal-directedness and persistence through change that are only ever found in living organisms.

In human form, life begins to reflect on itself, to try to understand its own nature and cause, which other life-forms do not. That is the advent of self-consciousness and awareness of oneself as a separate being, 'me and mine'. I think the 'myth of the fall' maps against that development, which in reality occurred over hundreds of millenia.

Where I see the religious enlightenment traditions providing a perspective in this great saga, is in the overcoming or transcendence of that sense of separateness, which is fundamental to the human condition. As Albert Einstein expressed it:

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

Materialism fails in not seeing this dimension of the human condition.