Philosophy Now Forum

OK. A silly semantic objection. I define "materialism " as the belief that only physical descriptions of reality obtain.
But then again a materialist will object that all our descriptions about reality are all about language. In other words (ironically ) a materialist thinks that we can never say anything about reality. All metaphysical issues ( about what is real) are only debates about language. In other words anything we can say about reality is only meaningless signifiers.

Arising_uk wrote:

raw_thought wrote:For a materialist Einstein's knowledge is identical to his brain's programming. Therefore, a materialist must come to the absurd conclusion that if one understood Einstein's brain one would understand Relativity. Obviously, an absurd conclusion. Therefore, since materialism inevitably leads to an absurd conclusion, materialism must be absurd.

What do you mean by "understood" in "if one understood Einstein's brain"?

"understood " in the common sense definition. I understand something if my comprehension of it makes sense.

raw_thought wrote:OK. A silly semantic objection. I define "materialism " as the belief that only physical descriptions of reality obtain.
But then again a materialist will object that all our descriptions about reality are all about language. In other words (ironically ) a materialist thinks that we can never say anything about reality. All metaphysical issues ( about what is real) are only debates about language. In other words anything we can say about reality is only meaningless signifiers.

Your definition is very broad and contains various types of materialist and physicalists explanations for consciousness.

[quote="raw_thought"]1. It is self evident that one can visualize a triangle.
2. The visualized triangle has no physicality. The neurons are not firing in a triangular shape etc. There is not a physical triangle in a person's brain when he/she visualizes one.
Note that saying that the brain has no physical triangle but facilitates it misses the point. It is similar to saying that holding a CD of Mozart's music is equivalent to hearing his music. While holding the CD there is no music. While visualizing the triangle there is no physical triangle.
3. Materialists believe that only the physical exists.
4. The triangle has no physicality.
5. Therefore, for the materialist there is no visualized triangle.
6. Therefore, for the materialist it was impossible to visualize a triangle.
7. I know that I can visualize a triangle. I am visualizing one right now.
8. Therefore, I know that materialism cannot be true in all cases.
9. Since materialism believes that only the physical exists in all cases,I know that materialism is false.
Show me what numbered point you believe is false or how my argument is invalid
There is a difference between truth and validity.
Here is an argument that is true and valid.
1. Socrates was a man.
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.
Here is an argument that is valid but not true.
1. All Martains eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martain.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is an argument that is true but invalid.
1. Nixon was president of the US.
2. Carter was president of the US.
3. Therefore Reagan was president.
If one cannot show how 1-8 (at the top of this post) are not all true, or cannot show how ythe argument is invalid,then the conclusion (9) must be true.[/quote]
seriously,if you cannot refute 2 then materialism is absurd. Try and refute any other premise or the validity of my argument. If you cannot 9 is true. Materialism is absurd!

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:OK. A silly semantic objection. I define "materialism " as the belief that only physical descriptions of reality obtain.
But then again a materialist will object that all our descriptions about reality are all about language. In other words (ironically ) a materialist thinks that we can never say anything about reality. All metaphysical issues ( about what is real) are only debates about language. In other words anything we can say about reality is only meaningless signifiers.

Your definition is very broad and contains various types of materialist and physicalists explanations for consciousness.

If you define "materialism " as the possibility that something other than matter exists.
Then OK, materialism can be true. If materialism recognizes the obvious, that more than something that falls within the physicalist paradigm exists. Ok, materialism can be true.
But that is not what most people think of when they conceptualize materialism.

PLEASE! When I say,"matter is all that exists" I recognize that energy exists, in the physicalist paradigm.

Materialism. Mr. Krauss, whom is a prominent atheist materialist and scientist, claims the universe came from nothing, and that nothing is really a bubbling "something" of energy he labels dark matter or dark energy. At the point "materialism" has no real meaning, since "nothing" equals "something" in the science community. Therefore consciousness would be considered a material. I suspect consciousness is photons but that still leaves some things unanswered.

When I say the word materialism, I'm usually talking about modern society.

raw_thought wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:


That's not what I meant by screen, I stated and clarified that many times. By screen I said an array of neurons in the brain displaying visual data in physical space. I'm well aware consciousness is spread across many sectors. What you are doing is backtracking plain and simple.

Then what you wrote has nothing to do with our debate. I agree ( with you) that there is no visualized triangle according to a materialist. However, I know that I can visualize one. I also agree ( with you) that neurons probably facilitate my ability to visualize a triangle.

raw_thought wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
No that's ridiculous. A computer does not render a mountain by "removing a mountain from a memory cell." A computer has a cluster of memory cells and the memory cells transfer energy to the render screen resulting in a picture of mountain in physical space. The render also updates and clears the screen and old images on the screen fade away after the virtual memory is allocated elsewhere.

Then why did you mention it? Of course one does not have a physical triangle in your memory cells. Similarly, one does not have a physical triangle in your brain when you visualize one.

I don't get what you are saying, it doesn't add up, sensible or logical.

I told you I read somewhere that there is a physical screen in your brain. My stance is there is a physical screen in your brain.

Therefore, there would be a PHYSICAL TRIANGLE in your brain. Are we on the same page here? Are you thinking by physical I mean a Physical, Gold, Steel Triangle? No I am talking about a neuron array which is physical that emits energy patterns, just as a LED screen emits energy patterns if you see a mountain on it.

If consciousness is spread in many sectors, why wouldn't it pickup the screen as well as many other senses? What you are saying doesn't add up, its contradictory.

I guess I cannot understand what you wrote. You seem to contradict yourself. The first quote from yourself (just above this post) seems to say that you do not believe in a screen. True,you say that you believe in a screen but the definition you give (seems to me) is not the conventional definition.
Draw a triangle on a piece of paper. That is what I mean is inside your brain if you believe that there is a physical triangle in your brain. Neurons firing (even if they cause you to visualize a triangle ) are not a physical triangle because nothing has the shape of a triangle.

The led screen has a physical triangle on it. Similarly, when I type the letter "P" this screen has a physical "P" on it. You can see it. The programming in your computer does not have a physical "P" in it. Its just 0111000111000.
My brain does not have a physical triangle in it even if my neurons are making me visualize one.
The 0111000111000 might cause a "P" to show up on yhe screen but there is no "P" in the 0111000111000.

raw_thought wrote:Continuation of the post just above,
Similarly, neurons firing may cause you to be able to visualize a triangle. However, neurons firing are not identical to a visualized triangle.
This is a more sophisticated version of "Mary's room". There is info (what a visualized triangle looks like) that is not identical to the knowledge of what neurons are firing.

A materialist must say that one cannot visualize a triangle, that that presentation does not give any information.
That is clearly absurd (that it is impossible to visualize a triangle ) therefore materialism is absurd.

Are you saying that if I draw a triangle on a piece of paper there is something that matches that shape in my brain when I visualize a triangle? That the neurons are firing in a triangular shape?
I am sure that that is absurd.
So if I visualize Fred Flintstone there is something in my brain that looks like Fred Flintstone?

raw_thought wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:OK. A silly semantic objection. I define "materialism " as the belief that only physical descriptions of reality obtain.
But then again a materialist will object that all our descriptions about reality are all about language. In other words (ironically ) a materialist thinks that we can never say anything about reality. All metaphysical issues ( about what is real) are only debates about language. In other words anything we can say about reality is only meaningless signifiers.

Your definition is very broad and contains various types of materialist and physicalists explanations for consciousness.

If you define "materialism " as the possibility that something other than matter exists.
Then OK, materialism can be true. If materialism recognizes the obvious, that more than something that falls within the physicalist paradigm exists. Ok, materialism can be true.
But that is not what most people think of when they conceptualize materialism.

I can see what you are getting at and I would probably agree. Materialism in relation to consciousness suffers from a reductionist problem taken too far. When Dennett takes materialism to its logical conclusion we find he is really giving us an elimination account, not a reductionist account. In the end consciousness is really just an illusion.

I would see language suffering from the same problem at the hands of the eliminationist. Such things as feelings, desires and qualia don't really exist, they are also an illusion. We think they exist, but it is just a problem of language.

Explanations in terms of consciousness, start out as materialist, but invariably end up eliminative.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

I agree for the eliminative materialist there are no concepts, pain,ecstasy, love,hate,values...
At university we joke that Dennett's "Consciousness explained" should be titled "Consciousness denied". Although Dennett might object, it is obvious that he does not believe that consciousness exists.

My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia.
Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist!
Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other people. However, at least you will know with absolute certainty that qualia exist.