Materialism is logically imposible

[Ginkgo]

Materialism is an epistemic methodolocy which explains thing through the medium matter a and energy as described by the laws of science.

I do not think that makes it a "belief system".

You have not begun to describe any logic, either for or against materialism, so the question posed by your thread is not valid.

That is the case since you delete the part which show the problem in OP: " In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state, S' is final state and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C is simply the expectation of what S' should be. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S) where P is the act of experience. There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen, C, and what happens, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything."

You are misusing logic.

i think the OP relationship between thoughts and brain processes can be stated more succinctly using Leibniz's Law, or Identity of Indiscernibles. The metaphysical claim that thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.

[Immanuel Can]

It is your goal? My apologies anyway. This site has low standards and I have no wish to contribute to that general curve.

Yes, well said. Fair enough.

OK it that has mass but is not an object. Is it a thing? So your assertion is that under materialism an idea has mass but is not an object then.

No, that's not MY assertion at all. It's a Materialist assumption I'm interrogating. I'm totally skeptical of it.

I'm merely pointing out that if an "idea" or "consciousness" is "material" it would have to have some of the properties Of a "material" entity. The other alternative is to deny it exists at all. Materialists try both strategies. Both are lame: if these phenomena are actually material, then they would have material properties we could identify -- but they don't, so Materialism is nonsense on that point. But denying that "consciousness" or "self" or "reason" are real phenomena is equally stupid. So Materialists are making very unimpressive arguments when it comes to those phenomena.

The comment was not about Naturalism. It was a comment about the scientific search for immaterial causes and effects of mind, which would proceed without naturalistic assumptions (As methodological naturalism proceeds without supernatural assumptions), but neither methodology rules out the thing not assumed. It would be methodological supernaturalism then.

A scientists does not need, and should not want, to start with an ideological bias against non-material entities, nor a bias in favour of them. He should just be open to the available data.

I'm sure you'd agree with that principle.

[Immanuel Can]

... unless you think one of the early cosmonauts launched one with such precision that it arrived in perfect solar orbit and somehow being constructed of superthermal material was miraculously not destroyed...

Not much on orbital mechanics huh? All you have to do is throw it hard enough in any direction to get it out of Earth gravity well and it will orbit the sun. Precision is needed to hit something, not to avoid it, and rocks survive nicely, I think the teapot doesn't require a heat shield.

I just thought the whole suggestion was daft, and was being rather tongue-in-cheek. You seriously thought I was parsing cosmic dynamics? However, I suppose irony does not get conveyed in a non-verbal form like this forum.

Well rest assured, you can dispense with the heat-shield. Also with the warp drive, the photon torpedoes and the tea: Darth Vader prefers coffee.

[Noax]

I'm merely pointing out that if an "idea" or "consciousness" is "material" it would have to have some of the properties Of a "material" entity.

Why must it have that particular property? That is a property of a material object, not a material relation. I've already said this multiple times. You are making up nonsense naive rules.

A scientists does not need, and should not want, to start with an ideological bias against non-material entities, nor a bias in favour of them. He should just be open to the available data.

Some do investigate via other methodologies. There is no mandate to assume methodological naturalism. Trust me about the incentive to do otherwise. There is some serious pressure for science that supports your view. Plenty of research grants to be had for discovery of evidence in your favor. There is a moral issue with such pursuits. Is it really science when one is told what the expected result is to be? Probably the biggest offenders in this area is drug testing. Too much money hangs on the results. They want profits, not truth.

About the teapot: I'm sure somebody will someday set one loose on their way to Mars or something. Too obvious of a joke to not ever do it. Can't do it from Earth orbit since they actually track every significant object and they'd not appreciate the addition of a deliberate one. The whole point is the unprovability of it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That is the case since you delete the part which show the problem in OP: " In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state, S' is final state and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C is simply the expectation of what S' should be. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S) where P is the act of experience. There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen, C, and what happens, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything."

You are misusing logic.

i think the OP relationship between thoughts and brain processes can be stated more succinctly using Leibniz's Law, or Identity of Indiscernibles. The metaphysical claim that thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.

True
It seems to me that rejecting materialism on the basis that we do not yet have a perfect understanding of consciousness is absurd, when so far it have provided us with more answers than anything else.
Spitits, souls, ghosties and ghoulies have not offered anything but confusion.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is your goal? My apologies anyway. This site has low standards and I have no wish to contribute to that general curve.

Yes, well said. Fair enough.

OK it that has mass but is not an object. Is it a thing? So your assertion is that under materialism an idea has mass but is not an object then.

No, that's not MY assertion at all. It's a Materialist assumption I'm interrogating. I'm totally skeptical of it.

I'm merely pointing out that if an "idea" or "consciousness" is "material" it would have to have some of the properties Of a "material" entity. The other alternative is to deny it exists at all. Materialists try both strategies. Both are lame: if these phenomena are actually material, then they would have material properties we could identify -- but they don't, so Materialism is nonsense on that point. But denying that "consciousness" or "self" or "reason" are real phenomena is equally stupid. So Materialists are making very unimpressive arguments when it comes to those phenomena.

But thoughts do have material components. If you remove parts of the brain, you loose parts of your mind. You can remove whole sections of memory, face recognition, capabilities such as sight, hearing, movement, and memories.
The more we learn the more you can DIRECTLY map areas of the brain to specific functions.

If you don't believe me, then take the blunt knife challenge!

[uwot]

I'm merely pointing out that if an "idea" or "consciousness" is "material" it would have to have some of the properties Of a "material" entity.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to persuade Mr Can that materialists do not assume that matter is ultimately made of tiny solid particles? It's just another in his army of strawman arguments.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm merely pointing out that if an "idea" or "consciousness" is "material" it would have to have some of the properties Of a "material" entity.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to persuade Mr Can that materialists do not assume that matter is ultimately made of tiny solid particles? It's just another in his army of strawman arguments.

It's tricky because his mind is a needle in a haystack, which pops out whilst you are not looking to give you the needle then hides behind all that straw.

[Immanuel Can]

You are making up nonsense naive rules.

They are the rules of Materialism, by definition. That they are nonsense is not my fault. "Not my monkeys, not my circus," as they say.

[uwot]

You are making up nonsense naive rules.

They are the rules of Materialism, by definition. That they are nonsense is not my fault. "Not my monkeys, not my circus," as they say.

Oh please! Someone tell this buffoon he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[bahman]

You are misusing logic.

i think the OP relationship between thoughts and brain processes can be stated more succinctly using Leibniz's Law, or Identity of Indiscernibles. The metaphysical claim that thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.

True
It seems to me that rejecting materialism on the basis that we do not yet have a perfect understanding of consciousness is absurd, when so far it have provided us with more answers than anything else.
Spitits, souls, ghosties and ghoulies have not offered anything but confusion.

I am not questioning whether it is possible to explain consciousness under materialism or not. My question is about the relation between what happen, moving your hand, and what you expect to happen, expecting moving your hand.

[Noax]

You are making up nonsense naive rules.

They are the rules of Materialism, by definition. That they are nonsense is not my fault. "Not my monkeys, not my circus," as they say.

Oh please! Someone tell this buffoon he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I think he knows. He's been reduced to flat out refusal to respond to a counterargument, instead falling back to reiterating this false representation of the alternative view. You've all seemed to have had a go at it, but I had to try for myself.

No positive evidence has been provided (It's obvious!), nor any attempt at explanation of the dualist model other than assertions of it happening in a realm inaccessible to empirical falsification. There's a few mentions of evidence of consciousness (communication for instance), but nothing that cannot be accomplished with the most simple machines or by trees. No attempt at the qualia or first-person angle, which at least is harder to attribute to trees.

The sole negative evidence offered seems to be this 'rules of materialism' thing that ideas must have mass.

Instead, the argument seems to be designed to build a wall of denial impervious from empirical threats. Any evidence against his position is simply denied with a wave of "it's a mystery". There is a bit of truth to that. We could build an artificial simulation of a neural network of a bat, complete with bat body hooked to motor control and senses and such. The artificial thing would then know what it is like to be a bat, but it still would not be able to convey that knowledge to us. It would not be proof any more than I can provide evidence to an idealist that I'm conscious.

I have had no response (other than "It's a mystery") as to how mind can cause physical effects. Physics actually has an open door for that sort of thing, but Mr Can does not attempt to leverage it. No response to the inefficiency of a human brain. It is literally 500 times larger than it needs to be to perform the remaining function it supposedly serves. No response of course to all the evidence of diseases and physical/chemical alteration to brains and their effects on consciousness. I got an admission of 'correlation' on that one. And finally no response to the scorecard of phenomena attributed to supernatural causes (mentioned by Hobbes). Each one resolved has been by natural causes, and not one via supernatural explanation. If the home team has such a losing record, it seems irrational to continue to place bets that the next game will be won. But rationality does not come into play. It's the home team after all.

After all that, the declaration of complete lack of evidence. Hence my assessment of a defense based on denial, not logic. An abject refusal to respond to arguments in conflict with a view that cannot be wrong by definition.

[Noax]

I am not questioning whether it is possible to explain consciousness under materialism or not. My question is about the relation between what happen, moving your hand, and what you expect to happen, expecting moving your hand.

You're not big into actually considering the replies offered by others, so I'm not sure why you persist at this.

What comprises this material C that you say is 'emergent'? Is it more protons and electrons and such, or is it mental-matter that is not part of causal physics?

If the former, why is it excluded from the state of matter S and S'?
If the latter, why do you call this view materialism? The fact that mental-matter emerges from physical origins doesn't make it materialism if it is a different kind of matter.

[Hobbes' Choice]

i think the OP relationship between thoughts and brain processes can be stated more succinctly using Leibniz's Law, or Identity of Indiscernibles. The metaphysical claim that thoughts and brain processes are one and the same.

True
It seems to me that rejecting materialism on the basis that we do not yet have a perfect understanding of consciousness is absurd, when so far it have provided us with more answers than anything else.
Spitits, souls, ghosties and ghoulies have not offered anything but confusion.

I am not questioning whether it is possible to explain consciousness under materialism or not. My question is about the relation between what happen, moving your hand, and what you expect to happen, expecting moving your hand.

How can you "expect" movement without calling into question consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

No positive evidence,,,

My evidence is the patient absurdity of the claim of Materialism. That is, that whatever "consciousness" is, it must be composed of some sort of material.

You've forgotten the OP. We're not arguing about what I think. We're not arguing alternatives to Materialism. We're discussing what's evidently true of Materialism itself. The requisite evidence is made up of the precepts and implications of Materialism itself. If those precepts and implications are absurd, then QED.

To summarize, the Materialist's claim has to be as follows: "consciousness" is a material entity that has no material properties at all -- not just mass or volume, but measurability of any kind by anyone, using any method. Yet it exists."

Really? And they say religious people are credulous....

There is one alternative. His claim could be "consciousness" it not a material entity, and as such, does not actually exist. It's an illusion. And if that's what he means, then there is no "consciousness" to say any such thing, no "consciousnesses" to receive it. That's even funnier.