Materialism

[altonhare]

This thread is for the discussion of what is termed "materialism". I don't know anything about it but would like to learn more, I think webolife wanted to start some discussion in this vein.

[webolife]

Thank you for starting this thread, Alton.
This was started as something of a tentacle of the "Objectivism" thread.
I use a number of terms interchangeably, although I understand there are different nuances to these terms. The terms are materialism, naturalism, and determinism. Operationally, here is what I'm thinking when I say the words:
1. Materialism: The view that there is no mind, consciousness, or spirit... these are only mirages based on the the interaction of atoms and molecules, chemistry, physics. Only matter exists, and its interactions (energy). A materialist offers no basis of individuality; soul is an illusion; there is essentially no difference between different forms of life, eg. bacteria and humans, nor between life and non-life. Matter and energy have no beginning or end, they are eternal.
2. Naturalism: The view that there is no supernatural realm, divinity, or supreme being involved (or not, eg Deism) in the universe. The universe "created" itself or has always existed. Science is not only limited to this view, but essentially excludes any other view or possibility. A naturalist is the "supreme being", if one must be admitted. Essentially all values or truth are/is relative to the perpective of the naturalist.
3. Determinism: The view that essentially if one could know the exact velocity and direction of every atom in the universe, the entire past and future of the universe would be determined. For the determinist, everything is a function of collisions of particles, there is no free-will, there is no purpose, no design. Any sense of design is an illusion based on probabilities and averages. Patterns exist only in the mind of the beholder, which is meaningless, because the mind and the beholder are also functions of collisions of particles.
It would be interesting and engaging to me to see these terms discussed in reference to the EU, relativity, uncertainty, objectivism, etc.

[Plasmatic]

Web 1,and 3 are all wrong and none of them are related to Oism at all [save some of the naturalism comments]. In fact I think you actually attribute somethings to them that are not a part of them as such.

Example the naturalism view while correct on the supernatural part,in no way subsumes a relativist perspective even though mystics think that theres no objective anything without "god".

[altonhare]

1. Depending on how you define exist and then define the terms mind, consciousness, and spirit the referents of these words either exist or not by definition. I certainly do not deny consciousness, and I think rcg's recently linked article represents my view on this matter reasonably well, although not perfectly.

I do not state that only objects exist. In fact, in my "exist" thread I explicitly state that concepts such as love and consciousness also exist. I don't believe that these concepts exist apart from the objects/entities whose specific interactions ultimately define these concepts. By this I mean there is not an object "love" sitting around. I cannot hand you a bottle of consciousness anymore than I can toss you my height. Both are concepts. I can toss you a ball, my body can shed atoms, etc. I cannot toss you my love, my body cannot shed consciousness. It makes no sense to speak of concepts/actions with no referent to the objects/entities acting.

2. Again, depending on how you define "supernatural", "God", etc. the referents of these words either exist or not by definition. The view that the universe "created itself" is an explicit contradiction and a paradox. There is no "original cause", this would violate causality, which is essentially a restatement of identity, and to violate identity is to invoke a contradiction. You cannot state the law of causality but then, retroactively, have an exception "this one time"! The universe was never "created".

3. What you call determinism is a restatement of identity. Everything can act only in accord with its single identity. Therefore its actions are all exactly determined. To reject this is to reject identity.

Determinism, while being philosophically sound from the Oist standpoint, is also the only valid standpoint of the scientist. A scientist seeks to understand and explain his/her observations. If the universe is not deterministic then this pursuit is meaningless. The scientist thinks he/she has developed an understanding of A, B, and C, summarized in some kinds of statements/laws about A, B, and C, only to turn around and have them all violated because A, B, and C can willy-nilly act like D, E, and F! The scientist tries to incorporate this in, giving some probability of A, B, and C acting like D, E, and F, and thinks he has found the answer. But it turns out that A, B, and C do not consistently convert to D, E, and F, but rather there is no pattern. One moment A, B, and C are acting in accord with what the scientists perceives are their identities and the next moment they are not. The next moment they are wholly different from the last two.

The pursuit of science implicitly involves the assumption of determinism and identity, else the pursuit itself is *meaningless*. Let's illustrate this even more clearly.

Scientist 1 accepts determinism and identity. He observes entity A behaving in a way consistent with hypothesis B. In another experiment he observes entity A behaving consistent with hypothesis C, which appears to be mutually exclusive with B! Scientist 1 knows this is impossible because he accepts identity and, by extension, determinism. Therefore his only course of action is to brainstorm a single hypothesis that explains behaviors B and C. With enough observation and critical thinking, eventually he does. Hypothesis D successfully explains entity A's behavior in all instances. Others think of new situations and ask scientist 1 what would happen. Using hypothesis D he explains what will happen. The experiment is set up to test the new situation and he is right. Or perhaps he is wrong, in which case it's back to brainstorming a new hypothesis that explains entity A in all instances. This is the scientific method.

Scientist 2 rejects determinism and identity. He observes entity A behaving in a way he hypothesizes as B. In another experiment he observes entity A behaving consistent with another hypothesis C. He reports his findings, A acts like B in situations B1-B10 and A acts like C in situations C1-C10. They ask him why, he shrugs, they just do. A new situation arises, situation B11, and he states that he cannot tell them. All he can tell them is the results of experiments. Scientist 2 has not learned anything, he has just cataloged observations. S/He is a taxonomist, calling this experiment charge, that one magnetism, the other one photoelectric, etc. Even more troubling, people ask scientist 2 if, when situation B1 is repeated in the lab, if s/he will get the same result. Scientist 2 says s/he does not know! Entity B could do anything as far as s/he knows! So they ask him what s/he actually learned, what scientist 2 can say, if anything, about anything. Scientist 2 states that s/he can say nothing about anything, all s/he can do is report what s/he did in the lab. Suddenly this whole "science" pursuit is seeming kinda meaningless and scientist 2 loses all his/her funding and joins a church, where people just give him money! They call it "tithing".

[Grey Cloud]

They call it "tithing

Then 'they' are wrong.

A tithe (from Old English teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a (usually) voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a Christian religious organization. Today, tithes (or tithing) are normally voluntary and paid in cash, cheques, or stocks, whereas historically tithes could be paid in kind, such as agricultural products. Several European countries operate a formal process linked to the tax system allowing some churches to assess tithes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes

[junglelord]

There is no such thing as Material. That is a deception of our perception.
All atoms are charge. Charge is Non Material.
Case Closed.
Quantum Biology is clear about this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6396723343
Go tell it to them.

[Plasmatic]

Careful Alton causality and determinism is not the same as far as Oism is concerned. Determinism as Web laid out denys the observed existence of free will. Causality simply states that things have a specific nature and must act accordingly. The identity of consciousness is that it is free to act or not act. This would be impossible if choice where "determined" by previous actions and would also imply a "beginning" or first cause/prime mover etc.

by junglelord on Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:12 pm

There is no such thing as Material. That is a deception of our perception.
All atoms are charge. Charge is Non Material.
Case Closed.
Quantum Biology is clear about this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6396723343
Go tell it to them.

I define material as the "stuff" entities are made of .
What definition of material are you using that doesnt make the above comment a meaningless contradiction?

[Plasmatic]

I watched the entire video pts 1 and 2. As is most often the case, Lipton equivocates "sensory perception" with conception or "beliefs". The video is an exellent example of how "quantum" interpretation of reality serve as an interpretive framework or metaphysics . The reason is the content of the concepts QM asserts as reality is not the realm of physics at all but pertains to the science all the others rest upon. Notice how he works his interpretation into his ethics and politics repeatedly!

Id love to ask mr. Lipton a simple question. "What is energy?"

However I can see quite a few interesting applications based on a whole different interpretation that his data supports in an interesting fashion.

[altonhare]

Plasm,

How does the concept of free will fit in with Identity? If everything acts in accord with a single identity, and every object in the universe has such an identity, then I don't see a way around determinism as Web has laid out.

[Plasmatic]

There is no "single Identity" Every thing is something in particular. The specific arrangements of particulars in a given existent is its identity. Identity simply means things are exactly what they are and the correllary is they must act according to this identity[causality]. The identity of the rational animal is that it has a contingent volitional consciousness.This precludes it from being classified as a rock, a tree a waterfall,music,etc. This is ubiquitously observed by direct introspection and inference from others activities. Does this make sense now?

Causality is not identified as Determinism by Oism.

[altonhare]

Plasm,

Circumstance C1 is followed by circumstance C2 but not C3, C4, ... etc. Are you saying there is some chance that C1 will be followed by C3, C4, etc.?

Can two identical situations give different results?

[Plasmatic]

Alton, two different situations are possible if the scenario involves a living entity as opposed to a rock. Because volition is self directed action, a rock cannot choose to respond to its stimulus in another fashion but humans can. This does not violate identity it affirms the identity observed in the rational animal as opposed to that of inanimate rocks. Rocks do not act to remain what they are,but living things MUST act to remain alive. If they do so unsuccessfully they do not remain charachterized as life because the requisite components cease to be.

[altonhare]

Plasm,

You're saying that the constituents of a living entity, since they're not alive, must go from situation 1 to 2 to 3 etc. and cannot veer from that path. Circumstance C1 always precedes circumstance C2 for a nonliving entity. Yet you claim the aggregate of these constituents, called a living entity, does not. Explain how a bunch of objects/entities behaving deterministically can result in non-deterministic behavior.

[Plasmatic]

I didnt claim anything was "deterministisc". I said I reject determinism and affirmed Identity/causality.

How does life come from non life? We do it in the lab every day. Is an emergent property of a particular arrangement of constituents. Why does life arise from non life? Because of identity. It is a controversial topic even amongst many who favor Oism otherwise though.

[altonhare]

I didnt claim anything was "deterministisc". I said I reject determinism and affirmed Identity/causality.

Either identical events have identical outcomes or they do not, but rather identical events have a range of outcomes. Identical events have identical identity. The "range of outcomes" is the standard interpretation of quantum theory, that two identical events can have nonidentical outcomes. This is a big reason quantum was so embraced, it supported theists idea of free will and non-determinism.

Plasm, are identical events with identical identities proceeded by the same event, or are there a range of possibilities for identical events with identical identities?