Materialism cannot be true

[bahman]

Considering the fact that there is only one process which tells us how the whole evolves by time therefore there should be only one consciousness. This is not true because our consciousness is local/personal phenomena and there are several of them. Therefore materialism cannot be true.

[Troll]

What do you mean by the "one process"? Entropy?

[bahman]

What do you mean by the "one process"?

Materialism is about the fact that there exists a big equation which matter evolves based on that. Everything is mechanical, can be explained by equation, isn't it?

Entropy?

No.

[Troll]

Troll wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:26 pm
What do you mean by the "one process"?
Materialism is about the fact that there exists a big equation which matter evolves based on that. Everything is mechanical, can be explained by equation, isn't it?
Troll wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:26 pm
Entropy?
No.


I find this contradictory. Since Entropy means, roughly,

"a big equation which matter evolves based on that. Everything is mechanical, can be explained by equation,

Entropy is conceptualized as the movement of energy through quantifiable systems. Under the assumption that there is nothing but such systems. I believe one can very roughly derive a rational prospectus of the whole of fundamental physics starting from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[jayjacobus]

Here and there? Here is what the consciousness senses. There is what is sensed. Some people argue that what is sensed is not material but how do they know? Most people think that what they sense is material and that works well. If what they sense is non-material, then materiality is an illusion. But it is a very involved and interconnected illusion. No matter what, it is not possible to stop eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, writing, breathing, etc. So, even people who don't believe the world is material, act as if it is. Is the question needed? I say no. Let's agree to think of the world as material. Or you can struggle with the illusion if you choose.

What I didn't say is that one cannot deal with the source of the illusion because the source of the illusion may not exist. if it doesn't exist then materialism is the default ism because it's the other possibility. Without further information, materialism wins by default.

[jayjacobus]

To me what seems to be, is. When additional information comes along, then what seemed to be is not what was or at least not exactly what was. But how can I reject what seems to be based on some conjecture. The conjecture need some solid supporting information. Until that supporting information is discovered I have to stand on my belief in what my senses show me and my consciousness accepts.

[bahman]

Troll wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:26 pm
What do you mean by the "one process"?
Materialism is about the fact that there exists a big equation which matter evolves based on that. Everything is mechanical, can be explained by equation, isn't it?
Troll wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:26 pm
Entropy?
No.


I find this contradictory. Since Entropy means, roughly,

"a big equation which matter evolves based on that. Everything is mechanical, can be explained by equation,

Entropy is conceptualized as the movement of energy through quantifiable systems. Under the assumption that there is nothing but such systems. I believe one can very roughly derive a rational prospectus of the whole of fundamental physics starting from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy is a macroscopic concept which allows us to formulate the relation between macroscopic variable of a system. Everything can be described in term of configuration and motion of matter. That is the claim of materialist.

[bahman]

Here and there? Here is what the consciousness senses. There is what is sensed. Some people argue that what is sensed is not material but how do they know? Most people think that what they sense is material and that works well. If what they sense is non-material, then materiality is an illusion. But it is a very involved and interconnected illusion. No matter what, it is not possible to stop eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, writing, breathing, etc. So, even people who don't believe the world is material, act as if it is. Is the question needed? I say no. Let's agree to think of the world as material. Or you can struggle with the illusion if you choose.

What I didn't say is that one cannot deal with the source of the illusion because the source of the illusion may not exist. if it doesn't exist then materialism is the default ism because it's the other possibility. Without further information, materialism wins by default.

I don't agree with your conclusion. Materialism fails as it is discussed in OP. What is your objection to the argument in OP.

[bahman]

To me what seems to be, is. When additional information comes along, then what seemed to be is not what was or at least not exactly what was. But how can I reject what seems to be based on some conjecture. The conjecture need some solid supporting information. Until that supporting information is discovered I have to stand on my belief in what my senses show me and my consciousness accepts.

I think OP brings the information that you are looking for.

[jayjacobus]

To me what seems to be, is. When additional information comes along, then what seemed to be is not what was or at least not exactly what was. But how can I reject what seems to be based on some conjecture. The conjecture need some solid supporting information. Until that supporting information is discovered I have to stand on my belief in what my senses show me and my consciousness accepts.

I think OP brings the information that you are looking for.

I see your opinion but it is not much of an argument.

[bahman]

To me what seems to be, is. When additional information comes along, then what seemed to be is not what was or at least not exactly what was. But how can I reject what seems to be based on some conjecture. The conjecture need some solid supporting information. Until that supporting information is discovered I have to stand on my belief in what my senses show me and my consciousness accepts.

I think OP brings the information that you are looking for.

I see your opinion but it is not much of an argument.

Actually it is more than a opinion. I can make it more clearer. Do you agree that there exist only one process? Yes. Then: 1) Consciousness is the result of physical process, 2) There is only one process, 3) Therefore there should be only one consciousness, 4) 3 is false therefore 2 is wrong (1 cannot be wrong).

[jayjacobus]

No, I disagree. Actually I think that hypothesis is not only wrong but has no foundation.

[Troll]

“Until that supporting information is discovered I have to stand on my belief in what my senses show me and my consciousness accepts.”

I think this is usually called idealism. As in Berkeley's Empiricism. It is basically common sense. Materialism is the idea that the intellect can get at some recondite homogeneous stuff that exists apart from human beings. For instance, Locke claims, there is some thing, totally recondite, and it stimulates the senses, and from that stimulation comes the so-called primary qualities, leading among them, solidity or touch.

I mean, we humans assign meaning to everything we see. A piece of food. For a materialist, food is homogeneous recondite stuff, with no meaning or edios. Eidos means species or specific kind of thing. Your argument, stemming from Feuerbach, on the we must eat or die, is a kind of inverted idealism, it is not what you want to say at all. It points to a magical realm called “the real”. That is all worked out in Marx and his followers. Such as György Lukács. It is more like mysticism than what you seem to want to say.

[Troll]

“Entropy is a macroscopic concept which allows us to formulate the relation between macroscopic variable of a system. Everything can be described in term of configuration and motion of matter. That is the claim of materialist.”

Although, there is a problem. Does mater refer to something one can see, and that is causal, or to the object of maths and functions? Function can be considered as replacing the natural notion of causation. maths of modern physics as replacing the “world picture” of human beings and their folk sense data.

Consciousness is the result of physical process, 2) There is only one process, 3) Therefore there should be only one consciousness, 4) 3 is false therefore 2 is wrong (1 cannot be wrong).

The process is the rule about how the material moves. It acts on the material. Which is many. If the consciousness is material, then it is material that dances differently under the one rule of motion. A feather moves differently than a stone, when there is air. Gravity is said to be unitary.

[jayjacobus]

“Entropy is a macroscopic concept which allows us to formulate the relation between macroscopic variable of a system. Everything can be described in term of configuration and motion of matter. That is the claim of materialist.”

Although, there is a problem. Does mater refer to something one can see, and that is causal, or to the object of maths and functions? Function can be considered as replacing the natural notion of causation. maths of modern physics as replacing the “world picture” of human beings and their folk sense data.

Consciousness is the result of physical process, 2) There is only one process, 3) Therefore there should be only one consciousness, 4) 3 is false therefore 2 is wrong (1 cannot be wrong).

The process is the rule about how the material moves. It acts on the material. Which is many. If the consciousness is material, then it is material that dances differently under the one rule of motion. A feather moves differently than a stone, when there is air. Gravity is said to be unitary.

Okay but what if consciousness is not material. Couldn't everything else be material?