Materialism is logically imposible

[Immanuel Can]

I said that. But I also said materialism doesn't need to specify when this happens. It is an arbitrary designation it seems. It seems to hinge on identity, when a single life splits into two lives. That point is the arbitrary designation, and materialism doesn't hinge on where that designation is made.

What is at stake is whether or not Materialism is a sufficient and rational explanation for that phenomenon. A view (like Dualism of some kind) that allows for non-material realities is not faced with the same problem. But because Materialism claims that "materials" is an absolutely comprehensive summary of all things in the universe, it owes us a "materials"-type explanation for all phenomena.

This it cannot provide, so it has to deny the problem. "Consciousness", it says, is an illusion.

Ironically, it takes consciousness even to decide "Consciousness is an illusion." What a paradox!

Other views need to solve this problem as well.

That is true. But at least potentially, they can; because they accept the existence of something beyond "matter." Materialism, by definition, can't.

The evolution model just says something like 'step by step' without declaration that we know what each of those steps were.

If so, its claim to be a sufficient and rational explanation is gone. It's supposed to make taking these things on any kind of faith unnecessary.

Consciousness/sentience is not a binary thing.

I think it is. If you think it's not, consider this: I can show you things that are definitely non-sentient, and I can show you things that are. Can you show me even one thing that is non-binary on that? That is, a thing that is neither sentient nor non-sentient?

I know of none.

Yes, those steps need accounting for.

Agreed.

No, I was never random chemicals. There is no "I" to be those random chemicals in a view that doesn't posit identity separate from the thing to which the identity was associated. So I did not become a conscious sentient being in my view. That implies a time when I wasn't one.

But this is merely semantic. At some point, the chemicals that would eventually make you up existed -- in fact, if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, as the axiom goes, you would have to say they always existed.

Nowadays, they form a "you." So when did those chemicals start being "you'? And how did they do it?

Quite simply, how does sentience arise from non-sentient matter?

No more remarkable than a toaster arising from not-toaster.

Ah, but I've never seen a toaster appear by gradualism or by spontaneous self-generation, have you? So if you want to say we were created -- like every toaster is -- then I'm fine with that. But Materialism is not fine with that.

You say consciousness exists, but you don't say what has it, so I have little idea what you mean by the word.

Let's clear that up. We may not be able to define the quality precisely, but we can give clear and excellent examples. Firstly, for sentience, you and I qualify. Secondly, for non-sentience, rocks and chemical compounds are clearly in that category. The dualism of sentient-non-sentient is extremely easy to establish.

Now, where do the rest of the items in your list fit? We don't know. As Thomas Nagel has put it, none of us knows what it's like to be a bat...or a tulip, or a whale, or whatever. But we do know that sentience is real, and we can't explain it by Materialism.

And we all know it, and we all act like these things exist -- even professed Materialists do, at the cost of undermining their own case.

They might define the word differently of course, so it probably doesn't undermine their case.

It does. Ironically, Materialists must deny the real existence of a "person" behind the scientist who states his belief in Materialism. But what would it mean for mere "materials" (i.e. the scientist) to "state" anything at all? Why should we believe "materials" when it speaks? And what sense does it make to speak of "materials speaking" at all?

Understood. How is the existence of these immaterial causes explained? Are they things with identity, or is it 'stuff' without it? The latter is sort of a panpsychic view. My problem with this view is it seems to just shove the problems under the rug where it is immune from scrutiny. Yes, this magic stuff under there solves your problems, and we don't have to explain it since it is declared beyond the empirical realm.

Maybe. But what sense does it make for us to say, "The empirical, material realm is all we can investigate fully, so it's all that we're going to accept as real"? That's deciding our ontology by restricting it to our epistemology, isn't it? And that is bass-ackwards.

The materialist doesn't attempt to describe 'soul'. Why would he? It is not reductionism to deny a thing.

Only if it does not exist. But it does. And we can tell because not only do we think it does, but so does the most ardent Materialist. He believes his "material" pronouncements. He thinks "he" is a "he," a real person. But personhood and the entity that is capable of pronouncements are not things that are materially explicable.

So he's become a hypocrite. He talks about everything being just materials, but he doesn't act like they are. In fact, he cannot.

[bahman]

Not so. "Gradually" only changes the length of time involved. It's no better than "suddenly".

"It grows gradually" is an unhelpful observation, even if it turned out to be true. For it fails to answer how it "grows" -- by what material forces and dynamics. It's what we might call a "magical" explanation, one that amounts to someone saying to us, "It just happens: ask no more questions."

Well, I was stressing that dualism has more issues than materialism/monism. We have difficulty to explain where mind comes from in materialism. This problem is just hidden in definition of dualism. So dualism is not offering anything new about what mind is.

That's clearly no good. Materialism is failing to explain anything there.

The problem doesn't resolved under dualism also.

Moreover, we might ask, "What grows?" For "It grows gradually" amounts to admitting a Dualism.

I can say that awareness grows while a being is conscious.

The "it" there is clearly "consciousness." And consciousness is clearly not itself material: when I get an idea, it doesn't produce a material entity like a brick or a whale, just an immaterial idea of something. And some ideas (such as values or abstractions) not only involve no manipulation of materials but have no direct reference to material reality at all. So Materialism, to stay consistent, has to reject the idea that there is any "it" we could be talking about: consciousness must be unreal, it says.

One can say that an idea is manifestation of neurobiological process.

[bahman]

There is a problem here. Why C', what we expect to happen, should be related to S', what happen? That is true since S' arises from S only.

No, this is completely false. You are defining S as a subset of matter, and subsequent states of any matter are not a function of a subset of local matter.

That is not false. I just claim that S, a subset of matter evolve based on laws of nature, S'=L(S), whereas C' arises from S, C'=P(S).

I am not discussing substance dualism since I claim that mind arises from matter, C'=P(S), so mind to me is material entity.

You seem to be defining C as some kind of different sort of matter that doesn't obey causal rules of the matter that you group under S. That's substance dualism. That it arises from matter makes no difference. Materialism says all matter states (not just some of them) exhibit the same causal relations, and that means your C is part of the cause of S'.

C arises from neuro-biological process so it is different than a brick or any sort of object but C is matterial.

[Immanuel Can]

This problem is just hidden in definition of dualism. So dualism is not offering anything new about what mind is.

But "Dualism" is just a broad category of beliefs, not a specific answer to what "consciousness is." Its advantage is that it allows for something to exist other than mere materials (or merely ideas) -- which is Monism.

That means that Monism is NEVER going to have an answer to what consciousness is. Either it's going to have to say, "It's materials," or else "It's just an idea, and so is material reality." Both of those answers are clearly reductional, and just dodge the question.

Some sort of Dualism -- we can specify type later -- has a chance of doing better. Monism has no chance.

Moreover, we might ask, "What grows?" For "It grows gradually" amounts to admitting a Dualism.

I can say that awareness grows while a being is conscious.

Then you have just admitted to being a Dualist yourself. For in your answer, you referred to a "being," meaning presumably the materials, and "awareness," meaning consciousness. If those two things exist, you're a Dualist. So either you'll need to change your answer or stop thinking Monism is the answer.

One can say that an idea is manifestation of neurobiological process.

That fails to see the distinction between a merely mechanical "process" and a neurobiological action, i.e. a thought. Normal "processes" are not "about" anything. But neural activity is about stuff...very important, distinct kinds of stuff.

Take a process like transpiration, or even a biological process, like breathing. Breathing is not "about" anything. It does generate abstractions or produce consciousness. It's just a biological process, pure and simple -- necessary, but without reference to other things. But thought processes are different: they refer to intentions, calculations, imaginings, abstractions, intentions, and so on -- things which only a conscious agent can produce.

Plants have biological processes. But so far as we know, they have no cognitions. Plants do not dream, invent, imagine, hypothesize, reason, and so forth. Human beings do. Our cognition is thus not a mere "process," for plants have lots of those; it's an expression of personhood, identity and meaning that is far beyond a mere "process." That difference needs to be explained much better than to say "it's a neurobiological process."

[Noax]

No, this is completely false. You are defining S as a subset of matter, and subsequent states of any matter are not a function of a subset of local matter.

That is not false. I just claim that S, a subset of matter evolve based on laws of nature, S'=L(S), whereas C' arises from S, C'=P(S).

You say materialism is impossible because of this. This means you got something wrong. Your claim is what then, that only S obeys laws of nature? Then C is not matter and you are not describing materialism. I don't know what matter you've decided is C (you refuse to elaborate), but whatever you've put in that group, it is the exact same sort of matter as what you put in the S group.

C arises from neuro-biological process so it is different than a brick or any sort of object but C is matterial.

You're saying it is causally ineffective matter for some reason. Why? It is the exact same matter as the brick. I can't think of one particle that is used by biology that is different from those in the brick.

[Terrapin Station]

Because Evolutionism is the Materialist explanation of the origins of things like humans and "consciousness." The OP considers whether or not Materialism is logically impossible. And I'm just pointing out one of its weaknesses.

You're making the same mistake that bahman is making.

Materialism only refers to one particular belief: that only matter/"physical stuff" (and it's relations and processes) exists.

That's it. Materialism doesn't imply any other view.

One can be a materialist and think that evolution has everything completely wrong.

One could be a materialist and think that the world appeared, wholesale, only five minutes ago.

One can be a materialist and think that the idea of physical laws is nonsense.

Materialism only requires that one believe that everything extant is material. You can't assume anything else about a materialist's beliefs other than that.

Really you're sounding like a religious apologist making assumptions about what atheists believe, making assumptions about an atheist "worldview", etc. The assumptions you're making about materialism are just the same sort of thing as that.

[Immanuel Can]

Materialism doesn't imply any other view.

One can be a materialist and think that evolution has everything completely wrong.

One could be a materialist and think that the world appeared, wholesale, only five minutes ago.

One can be a materialist and think that the idea of physical laws is nonsense.

Materialism only requires that one believe that everything extant is material. You can't assume anything else about a materialist's beliefs other than that.

So which one of these things above do you believe?

None of them, right? I thought so.

That's because you're rational, and can't accept Materialism as a minimal belief. You realize that it needs supporting features, such as the belief in physical laws, the belief in the persistence of matter, and the belief in Evolutionism as a process with integrity.

So this objection is smoke. If it wins, it maybe gets Materialism itself conceptually or definitionally "off the hook," but then it leaves you with no kind of Materialism you would find believable anyway.

[Terrapin Station]

So which one of these things above do you believe?

Well, I'm a materialist of course.

I'm an anti-realist on physical law. I'm an anti-realist on ALL abstract objects, abstract existents, etc.

I have no sort of wholesale commitment to the received views of evolutionary theory (or the received views of any scientific discipline for that matter), though I do buy evolutionary theory at least roughly.

I don't think that evolutionary theory functions as a "explanation" of consciousness, or that it's even particularly relevant to a philosophical discussion of consciousness, which presumably is what we'd be having in a forum like this.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think that evolutionary theory functions as a "explanation" of consciousness,

Well, we certainly agree on that. It's pretty non-functional when it comes to explaining consciousness.

or that it's even particularly relevant to a philosophical discussion of consciousness, which presumably is what we'd be having in a forum like this.

Okay. But I think it is. And I think it is because I regard "consciousness" as a genuine phenomenon.

And actually, I think you do too, even if you have perhaps not thought about it yet. For you do assume, do you not, that "I" am talking to "you," and "you" are responding to "me"? And if so, what is going on but the exchange of consciousness, of perspectives, of reasons, of rationality? In other words, two "conscious" beings are communicating at the moment. Is that not what is happening?

Physically, we are not in each other's presence. And even the black symbols we are sending to each other mean nothing physically...they only get a "meaning" as they are sent and received by consciousnesses. So I don't think you're quite so Monist as all that. If you were, then we wouldn't be talking.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay. But I think it is. And I think it is because I regard "consciousness" as a genuine phenomenon.

I do, too. It's just that evolutionary theory has f-all to do with talking about consciousness from a philosophical perspective.

And actually, I think you do too, even if you have perhaps not thought about it yet.

Patronizing yet again. You come across like a royal ass.

The rest of your comment has absolutely nothing to do with why we'd be talking about evolutionary theory in a philosophical context when the subject is consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay. That's what you think. I can hardly disagree, because that's what you think.

You mistake my disagreement with you for patronizing. I am respecting you by not assuming you've not thought the issue through, rather than that you've tried to think it through but come to a wrong conclusion. If you wished me to assume you'd messed up, I guess I could have...but it seemed to me uncharitable.

[Noax]

You say consciousness exists, but you don't say what has it, so I have little idea what you mean by the word.

Let's clear that up. We may not be able to define the quality precisely, but we can give clear and excellent examples. Firstly, for sentience, you and I qualify. Secondly, for non-sentience, rocks and chemical compounds are clearly in that category. The dualism of sentient-non-sentient is extremely easy to establish.

Now, where do the rest of the items in your list fit? We don't know. As Thomas Nagel has put it, none of us knows what it's like to be a bat...or a tulip, or a whale, or whatever. But we do know that sentience is real, and we can't explain it by Materialism.

You totally avoided the harder examples. I didn't ask if we could know what it was like. Of course we can't. I want to know what you mean by conscious or 'vitality', because you say materialists deny it or declare it an illusion. I think I'm conscious, thank you. Not an illusion. I can decide that consciousness is not an illusion and I don't see the need to assert another sort of ontology to do it. I'm left with no clue as to what you claim materialism cannot explain.

Does a tulip need something dualistic to be alive, even if not consciousness? Can a machine be conscious? If not, why can it do what I do without the consciousness? If it can do it, then why can't I?

How does dualism explain all phenomena? It is no explanation at all, just an assertion that there is this other thing that does the work. How is that any different than materialism making the same assertion about the lack of need for anything else? I don't know what problem you have solved.

Terapin is right about evolution theory not being part of either view, but admittedly the typical physical monist subscribes to methodological naturalism, so the two are often paired. But I was taught both dualism and evolution in my school, so they're not exclusive.

[Conde Lucanor]

Yes, we can. That is what physicist call it condensed matter physics.

What you're referring to is inanimate matter only. Life is a domain in which matter is organized with such intricate complexity that you cannot explain a particular behavior of a given entity from its basic physical properties at atomic levels. That's why a physicist will not solve the problems that face a biologist, neuroscientist or a simple doctor.

There will be an explanation for Life under materialism if we accept that Life is an emergent phenomena.

You say "there will be" as if we didn't have already a materialistic explanation of life. We do have and its emergent properties are part of it.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay. That's what you think. I can hardly disagree, because that's what you think.

You mistake my disagreement with you for patronizing. I am respecting you by not assuming you've not thought the issue through, rather than that you've tried to think it through but come to a wrong conclusion. If you wished me to assume you'd messed up, I guess I could have...but it seemed to me uncharitable.

In other words then, the reason you're routinely patronizing is that you're arrogant enough to believe that if one were to just think about any issue enough, if one were to simply be familiar with the right materials, one would reach the same conclusions you've reached . . . which again amounts to you being an incredible ass, and unfortunately a very stereotypical sort of person found in venues such as this.

At any rate, I like how you just stop bothering trying to support why you keep bringing evolutionary theory into the discussion, how you simply ignore that passage where you acted as I'd you were addressing that issue but you really weren't at all, etc. by acting as if we were merely giving our opinions of chocolate ice cream.

The real answer seems to be that you're someone who has a script, you follow the script (think of a telemarketing script, complete with canned answers to objections etc.), and referring to "evolutionism" is part of your script. That's part of why I said you come across like a Christian apologist--they tend to follow scripts. (Also, conflating evolutionary theory with evolutionism/not being familiar with what the term "evolutionism" conventionally refers to seems like something a Christian apologist would do.)

You don't seem to even be able to really cognize anything that takes you too far off script. I've tried it a few times with you now, and it's like (ultimately unsuccessfully) pulling teeth.

[Immanuel Can]

You totally avoided the harder examples.

No I didn't. Instead, I told you what I really think...that if they have what we call "consciousness," it's nothing we can say. You don't want me to lie to you, do you?

But here's something more certain. With regard to consciousness, we may not know about such middle cases, but we most certainly CAN say WE do have a thing called "consciousness." And we CAN say rocks and basic chemicals don't. Given that these extremes are very easy to establish, so is the basic nature of the problem. The particular middle cases -- whales and tulips and bats or whatever -- can be worked out later, IF you can even figure out a test that would tell you. I'm happy to confess to you I know of no such tests.

It won't matter, though. For our lack of clarity on those middle cases has no effect on the fact that we know for sure that some things have consciousness, and some don't. And so if someone wants to say, as gradualism (or Evolution) does, that the former mysteriously appeared from the latter, then the burden of proof is entirely on him or her to say how.

You and I have no such duty, for the former and the latter are quite clear from the examples we can unequivocally give.