...that sense of separateness, which is fundamental to [an artifact of] the human condition ... — Wayfarer

Like e.g. 'the Earth being flat and not moving and at the center of "Creation"'. Human intuitions (e.g. "sense of separateness") are usually naive, parochial and wrong – just adaptively adequate enough for catching food and a mate – which is why your woo-of-the-gaps are so profligate and even somewhat effective, and why modern sciences (i.e. systematicallly learning how n o t to fool ourselves e.g. confirmation bias) developed so late in human history.

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

When Greek & Indian atomists proposed that whatever exists, at the very least, consists of "atoms & void", they did not claim "except human subjectivity". There are only epistemological distinctions but no ontological separations in atomism, sir. Your notion of (mechanistic) "materialism" is derisively called "vulgar" because it is pedestrian, unphilosophical, and patently false – you're just barking at the shadow of a strawman again.

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

You try to prove this by quoting Einstein.

The poverty of your position, as had been repeatedly demonstrated, is that you suppose that wonder, achievement, awe, adoration, love... are somehow incompatible with understanding of the physical world.

Not with the physical world, but with materialism, although it gets tiresome having to explain that all the time.

Not sure why we must accept intentionality (behaviour) as evidence of an enchanted world. — Tom Storm

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm.

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm. — Banno

:100: :smirk:

... it gets tiresome having to explain that all the time. — Wayfarer

That's because when you believe you are "explaining", Wayf, you're actually just barking at shadows in your platonic cave. :sweat:

Indeed, these arguments are tiresome.

Materialism disappeared with Newton's action at a distance. And yet you and again insist on criticising a position no one holds.

emergent — 180 Proof

Strong or weak?

Materialism disappeared with Newton's action at a distance. And yet you and ↪Alkis Piskas again insist on criticising a position no one holds. — Banno

Nonsense, absolute balderdash. Scientific materialism and/or physicalism is the mainstream orthodoxy of the secular academy. It isn't often spelled out, but it is generally assumed. Thomas Nagel's 2012 book was called 'Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False'. Similar ground was covered in Raymond Tallis' Aping Mankind. These are two mainstream secular philosophers, both of whose books were greeted with universal umbrage by the professorial class, the first being named 'the most despised book of 2012'. Apparently according to you, two books with no subject matter addressed to no audience.

The jury is still out. Maybe both.

:eyes: :lol: :shade: :rofl: ...

The reason being that 'scientific materialism' is what is left of the 'western tradition' of philosophy, post the Death of God. The picture it paints, of an essentially material universe, explicable with reference only to physico-chemical causes, is exactly the picture you would arrive at if you took Descartes' celebrated division of the world, and subtracted from it the 'res cogitans'.

There you go again! I bet you enjoyed Kindy.

Then why is there no entry on materialism in SEP?

I say because there are no materialists. "Materialism" is a term used by spiritualists to mischaracterise those who show that they are wrong.

Edit: A case in point of that mischaracterisation:

↪Banno The reason being that 'scientific materialism' is what is left of the 'western tradition' of philosophy, post the Death of God. The picture it paints, of an essentially material universe, explicable with reference only to physico-chemical causes, is exactly the picture you would arrive at if you took Descartes' celebrated division of the world, and subtracted from it the 'res cogitans'. — Wayfarer

Wtf is "Kindy"? Before you answer, sir, address (if you're up to it) this .

It's no straw man. How is saying 'whatever exists is based on matter' different from saying 'nothing exists beside matter'? If something is based on matter then it can be reduced to it, which is basically what all materialism says. — Wayfarer

I am not sure if that's right, but I can't argue against it.

After all, superstructures exist that are more than just the parts that make them up. But that's not a strong argument.

As an old friend of mine, Paul. A. S., asked once (he said everything just once, it is I who keep repeating his quotes), "Is the sum of a woman better than her whole?"

Have you considered this: all pain are induced by physical interaction. All pleasure are, too. And they consistently are produced the same, predictable way. Maybe joy, fear, and elation including religious ecstasy is a learned behaviour based on practiced physical reactions that produce pleasure or pain. This is a theory, not necessarily the truth. But it's just as plausible to say that "higher" order emotions are honed lower order feelings, as it is plausible that feelings, emotions and getting excited is impossible to explain with using materialism and its basic tenets alone.

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm. — Banno

This merely shows how big science seems to have grown. Science isn't even able to explain how, why, or with what intentions, elementary particles move towards each other or away from each other. Maybe already at the fundamental level God-given love and hate operate...

I had hoped for a succinct, intelligent and challenging reply!

But it was just .

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm. — Banno

Ha! I guess intentionality, consciousness, something from nothing and whatever's left of Aquinas' five ways or proofs will always be offered up as potential defeaters of naturalism.

I'm not a scientist or philosopher, so I defer to others. But it does often seem that an argument from incredulity is employed by people who cannot imagine how the world could be what it is without some kind of transcendent or supernatural power. I wonder if I should stay out of these discussions in future... :gasp:

Science isn't even able to explain how, why, or with what intentions, elementary particles move towards each other or away from each other. Maybe already at the fundamental level God-given love and hate operate... — Cornwell1

Scientific and philosophical illiteracy on full display. Of course, woo-woo is "The Answer". :up:

After all, superstructures exist that are more than just the parts that make them up. But that's not a strong argument. — god must be atheist

I think the 'whole is more than the sum of its parts' is quite a compelling argument actually, with a long pedigree. It's based on the observation that organisms seem to embody a principle of unity - that even through they comprise multiple sub-systems or components, all of these act together for a common purpose. That is called entelechy. For this reason, Aristotle has enjoyed rather a comeback in the biological sciences.

Edit: A case in point of that mischaracterisation: — Banno

The picture it paints, of an essentially material universe, explicable with reference only to physico-chemical causes, — Wayfarer

So, tell me, if materialism isn't saying that the universe is explicable with reference only to physico-chemical causes, then what is it saying?

Have you ever heard of, or perchance read, Jacques Monod famous book, Chance and Necessity (1970)? Monod was a Nobel Laureate in Biochemistry, and this is exactly what he said. Likewise too Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA, who posits posits that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." That's what materialism is.

I don't honestly think that you yourself hold those view, but I also think you don't understand the issue.

Then why is there no entry on materialism in SEP? — Banno

Look harder.

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 to. — Alkis Piskas

I just took a paraphrasing of your quoting Wikipedia. If you argue against that, you argue against something you have already accepted.

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist." — Alkis Piskas

True enough, and in your credit, you did not argue against it... just stated that you think there is more to it.

I can't argue this. It is an undecided question at this point. All we can argue is what different schools of philosophy say; we can't argue whether this school is correct or the other or the third one. At this point, we can only decide which to believe, we can't decide which of them is true.

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. — Wayfarer

The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.

Poor old @jgill.

I consider this as a compliment...

Point is, I have taken a leap in the hot waters of fundamental physics and cosmology and have come to the conclusion that it's no more than a nice tale about the physical world. I understand the the big bang, particles at a fundamental level, serial big bangs, etc. At the same time it's a complete mystery why it's there and what it's internal nature is like. I can feel it, I can see it, I can describe it without a description that possibly can go deeper. No god of the gaps needed. Still I'm a lost soul... Thanks to you though I know why I live, what's it all about, and where it all came from. You are God playing hide and seek with themselves... A compliment!

So, tell me, if materialism isn't saying that the universe is explicable with reference only to physico-chemical causes, then what is it saying? — Wayfarer

That the universe is made up entirely of matter bumping into more matter.

And it is wrong.

Look harder. — Wayfarer

...then a list of articles rejecting materialism.

Our very physical form is already outside of its respective mind, entering the minds of others, and alive. Enough of the materialist cult that only sees death and forces everyone else to only see death.

@Wayfarer

So what do we disagree on?

Of course, die-hard materialism of that kind may only be a minority view, but in my experience, many people believe in something like it, but they don't really think it through or articulate it. It's more like the accepted wisdom or reigning myth of the secular west. — Wayfarer

I think you imagine materialists hiding under you bed.

So what do we disagree on? — Banno

It is a live subject in culture and philosophy. If you don't find it interesting, then why barge in with inane commentary?

You are God playing hide and seek with themselves.. — Cornwell1

that's Alan Watts' The Book on the Taboo - one of the books that got me interested in the whole subject. In 1972 :yikes:

...why barge in... — Wayfarer

Truth is, I was invited. Doubtless you would rather I had remained absent, but you love it when I chime in. Always remember, you are not obliged to respond to my comments.

Odd thing is, we pretty much agree as to what is to be done. The narcissism of small differences draws us together, keeps us apart.

Of course, die-hard materialism of that kind may only be a minority view, but in my experience, many people believe in something like it — Wayfarer

Scientific materialism and/or physicalism is the mainstream orthodoxy of the secular academy — Wayfarer

Materialism (in the sense Banno is clearly using the term) and physicalism are not the same thing.
Materialism is/was the position that everything is matter. Its a view that is, obviously, inconsistent with our contemporary understanding of the world, since there are things which are physical, but not matter (quantum fields, for instance).

Physicalism is the position that everything that exists is physical (not material, in the sense of matter), or stands in some important relation (causation, supervenience, etc.) with the physical. Obviously physicalism is similar to and is a direct philosophical descendent of materialism (and very probably is "the mainstream orthodoxy"), but they are not the same, and it is extremely unlikely you've ever met anyone who is a materialist in this sense.

It boggles the mind that one can have such strong and dogmatic opinions on a given topic without having even bothered to familiarize themselves with the basic terminology. You'd think people would get bored with only ever fighting strawmen, rather than positions anyone actually holds.

The poverty of your position, as had been repeatedly demonstrated, is that you suppose that wonder, achievement, awe, adoration, love... are somehow incompatible with understanding of the physical world — Banno

:100:

But 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

To say that thinking is dependent on neural activity is not to say that thinking doesn't exist, or that it is immaterial (in both senses of the world). You could say thinking is non-physical (if you define the physical as that which can be observed and quantified).

Remember, what is physical and measurable is not mere matter, but in-formed matter; so the physical is always hylomorphic, whereas matter as such is not necessarily.