Materialism is logically imposible

[Hobbes' Choice]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature.


Your thought?

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.

[bahman]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature.

Your thought?

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."

[Immanuel Can]

Physics has nothing to do with the evaluation of ideas, concepts, consciousness or "soul," unless you imagine one of those possesses physics-type properties, the kinds of properties physics can address. That's a problem for Materialism...it's no problem to me, since I don't hold that they possess any of these properties, and nobody so far has been able to show they can. Indeed, you have not suggested any "materials" that might be the basis of consciousness...instead, you've called those things "properties." But either these "properties" have to be materials themselves, or like velocity, mass, density, etc., they have to be descriptors of some aspect of physicality which can be measured.

All correct, but how does any of this attempt to sidetrack address what I asked? You know, the violation of physics part you need to explain....

There can be no "violation of physics" about any matter about which physics does not speak -- just as there can be no "violation of football rules" for someone who is playing cricket. It was you who said physics does not speak about these matters, anymore than economics does: so how then can I run afoul of any precept of physics?

However, if you know one, feel free to offer it. I don't know which one you intend, nor can I imagine how I'm allegedly afoul of it by criticizing Materialism.

So articulate one. What alternate solution do you propose for the problem?

This is not our fish to fry at the moment. The OP only suggests "Materialism is logically impossible." It does not volunteer "An alternate theory of consciousness." But even were the OP poster incapable of generating a specific competing theory, that would not save Materialism. Materialism does not get any default wins: it has to stand or fall on its own rationale -- or in this case, its own irrationality. If it can make no sense of things like "reason," "consciousness," "self" or "communication," then it falls.

When that happens, we realize that we may not then have the right theory in hand, but we know for sure Materialism isn't it.

There you go (similar to bahman actually) asserting that consiciousness is a material.

You have me wrong, though why, I cannot imagine. I'm no Materialist: I intended no such thing. However, I did point out that Materialism, by definition, HAS to assert it. That's one of the things that makes Materialism so implausible. And I've been critical of that, from start to finish.

Meanwhile, Bahman will speak for himself; he's capable, I'm sure.

There are materials responsible for it, the consciousness is not a material itself any more than combustion is a material.

I'm sort of with you on that, depending on what you mean by "responsible for." We cannot at present scientifically discern that materials cause consciousness -- and in fact, it makes no discernible sense to say that they could.

But that the two are engaged in an important exchange of mutuality, we can all see. We cannot tell why it is that mind-states can profoundly affect physiology either: if Materialism were true, that just should not happen -- for the "materials," if they are being the "cause" of consciousness, should simply be incapable of that. It might be equally right to say that something called "consciousness" directs the physical brain as to how to conduct its business in performing tasks like interpretation and communication. In some ways, that looks like a plausible answer.

However, we may not be able to leap straight to a perfect theory of the mind-brain connection. What looks more promising is to rule out as many faulty theories as we can rule out on logical and empirical grounds, so as to narrow the field to the most plausible answers. We may make progress that way.

Materialism we can rule out. It's just reductional, self-contradictory, and not plausible, even on its own terms.

[Noax]

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".

I've been pushing it as one: Belief that naturalism is complete, without need of additional supernatural additions.

By "not a belief system", do you mean more like a lack of need for active belief in nonexistence of orbiting teapots and such?

[Immanuel Can]

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

I've been pushing it as one: Belief that naturalism is complete, without need of additional supernatural additions.

You're quite right, I think. It's impossible to hold to Materialism on anything but faith grounds. After all, how could we possibly know, prior to all investigation, that there is nothing that is not made of "materials", without simply taking it as foundational and presuming it? It's certainly not capable of empirical or logical demonstration in any way. And it's certainly not the only possible belief.

[Noax]

There can be no "violation of physics" about any matter about which physics does not speak -- just as there can be no "violation of football rules" for someone who is playing cricket.

There does if your claim includes the cricket players scoring football points.

You continue to evade the question. How does the mental cause any physical effect. Without an answer to that, the mental breaks no rules out there in fairy land, but it is epiphenomenal and plays no role in your behavior.

This is not our fish to fry at the moment.

Can't answer it huh? Thought so.

The OP only suggests "Materialism is logically impossible." It does not volunteer "An alternate theory of consciousness."

No, but you do, and yours is logically impossible. As for the OP, tell bahman why his description of materialism isn't. His description is of dualism, despite the designation of the wrong word for it, and his argument is actually your fish to fry.

Materialism does not get any default wins: it has to stand or fall on its own rationale -- or in this case, its own irrationality. If it can make no sense of things like "reason," "consciousness," "self" or "communication," then it falls.

Correct.

However, I did point out that Materialism, by definition, HAS to assert it.

I see what uwot means about the way you misrepresent everything. You don't know the definition of materialism apparently. Materialism does not assert that everything is an object. Relations and properties and processes are not objects under materialism any more than they are in your view. It says everything has material causes, not that everything is an object with object properties.

That's one of the things that makes Materialism so implausible. And I've been critical of that, from start to finish.

Try actually considering the view instead of making up strawman assertions.

Meanwhile, Bahman will speak for himself; he's capable, I'm sure.

Not so sure...

But that the two are engaged in an important exchange of mutuality, we can all see. We cannot tell why it is that mind-states can profoundly affect physiology either: if Materialism were true, that just should not happen -- for the "materials," if they are being the "cause" of consciousness, should simply be incapable of that. It might be equally right to say that something called "consciousness" directs the physical brain as to how to conduct its business in performing tasks like interpretation and communication. In some ways, that looks like a plausible answer.

What tasks? You told me it seems to have none other than trivial tasks like homeostasis that other creatures manage with 5% of the power. I don't really care what you say the brain does (other than to point out the insane inefficiency of the human one), but I want to know where the downlink is. There is a huge piece of religious thinking that looks for science like that (methodological supernaturalism) and they'd have pointed out something if it were to be found, however thin the evidence. Without that, they must continue to pretend not to see the elephant in the room.

I mention methodological supernaturalism above. That is an entirely valid methodology, and in fact a required methodology for the sort of thing I'm asking here, but it does not entail exemption from the scientific process.

However, we may not be able to leap straight to a perfect theory of the mind-brain connection. What looks more promising is to rule out as many faulty theories as we can rule out on logical and empirical grounds, so as to narrow the field to the most plausible answers. We may make progress that way.

Can you? A list of where/what it isn't is not exactly progress. That's just progress towards verification of the naturalist view.

Materialism we can rule out. It's just reductional, self-contradictory, and not plausible, even on its own terms.

At least even on the biased terms you give it. I agree, the materialism you describe is not consistent. Maybe you should cite actual claims instead of making up claims for the view you oppose.

[Noax]

You're quite right, I think. It's impossible to hold to Materialism on anything but faith grounds. After all, how could we possibly know, prior to all investigation, that there is nothing that is not made of "materials", without simply taking it as foundational and presuming it? It's certainly not capable of empirical or logical demonstration in any way. And it's certainly not the only possible belief.

You conveniently edited out the teapot part, so let's apply that here:

"How could we possibly know, prior to all investigation, that there is no teapot orbiting the sun, without simply taking it as foundational and presuming it? It's certainly not capable of empirical or logical demonstration in any way. And it's certainly not the only possible belief."

I suspect this is Hobbes' point in naturalism not being a belief system. The statement above is valid, but it just doesn't call for active belief.

[Immanuel Can]

How does the mental cause any physical effect.

It doesn't impinge on this question. Only a Materialist would assume that something has to produce a material effect in order to be "real." If that's your assumption, then that's a gratuitous assumption, and I can't join you in it.

But as it is, the fact that there is a "you" interpreting these symbols, and that they don't look to you like *$^%@&^%! is a simple demonstration of the reality of consciousness.

No, but you do, and yours is logically impossible.

Oh, DO tell me what you think my theory is...please, I'm dying for you to try....

Materialism does not assert that everything is an object.

No, and I didn't say it did. I said it had to take for granted that the ultimate answer to every question is "materials." And that's not my opinion: it's definitional. If you have a different theory, then by definition, you're not a Materialist.

Which makes it amazing you want to defend the theory, if you do.

What tasks?

Things like cognition, generating a sense of self, reasoning, recognizing, memorizing, communicating...

You told me it seems to have none other than trivial tasks like homeostasis that other creatures manage with 5% of the power.

I categorically did not. You're mistaking me for someone else. Go back and look, if you doubt it.

Can you? A list of where/what it isn't is not exactly progress. That's just progress towards verification of the naturalist view.

Actually, falsification is one part of the scientific method. I'm surprised you think it's unhelpful. Regular science would disagree: it regards negated hypotheses as part of a useful process of inquiry. When we know something is dead wrong, we are one step closer to a better answer.

In any case, falsification certainly doesn't conduce to Naturalism, because in the question of "consciousness," Naturalism is the first thing such a procedure rules out.

[Immanuel Can]

You conveniently edited out the teapot part,

I did. It was just so goofy I didn't imagine you were trying to be serious. Were you?

"How could we possibly know, prior to all investigation, that there is no teapot orbiting the sun, without simply taking it as foundational and presuming it? It's certainly not capable of empirical or logical demonstration in any way. And it's certainly not the only possible belief."

Plausibility. The same way we get any kind of scientific knowing. A "teapot," by definition of what one is, is a constructed vessel made for the steeping of tea. The chances that there is one are vanishingly small, 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...

I said several exchanges back that all scientific knowledge is probabilistic. Maybe you skipped that bit.

What a silly, easy question.

The statement above is valid, but it just doesn't call for active belief.

"Valid" is a logic term in philosophy. You mean "possible," I think.

[Noax]

How does the mental cause any physical effect.

It doesn't impinge on this question. Only a Materialist would assume that something has to produce a material effect in order to be "real." If that's your assumption, then that's a gratuitous assumption, and I can't join you in it.

But as it is, the fact that there is a "you" interpreting these symbols, and that they don't look to you like *$^%@&^%! is a simple demonstration of the reality of consciousness.

And the reality of your typed reply is a simple demontration of a physical effect, unless it is not your mind producing your posts, which would explain their content a bit more...

Oh, DO tell me what you think my theory is...please, I'm dying for you to try....

Give it a try. An immaterial consciousness is the source of your opinion, and is the origin of your physical posts in this thread. I chose 'source' for lack of a better word. I'm not implying a direct telepathic posting of forum posts, just a chain of events that at some point seems to require a bridge to the physical, or require an explanation as to why such a bridge is not necessary.
I've actually worked out how it can be done, but it requires interpretations that you very likely don't buy into. But my interpretations of physics and origin of species has the funny side effect of the necessity of beings somewhere with their shots being called by immaterial inputs. We're just not those beings.

Materialism does not assert that everything is an object.

No, and I didn't say it did. I said it had to take for granted that the ultimate answer to every question is "materials." And that's not my opinion: it's definitional. If you have a different theory, then by definition, you're not a Materialist.

You're asserting that a materialist must assign properties like mass to an idea. So you're retracting that now?

I categorically did not. You're mistaking me for someone else. Go back and look, if you doubt it.

Ambiguous grammar. Sorry. I took the comment for brain tasks.

Actually, falsification is one part of the scientific method. I'm surprised you think it's unhelpful. Regular science would disagree: it regards negated hypotheses as part of a useful process of inquiry. When we know something is dead wrong, we are one step closer to a better answer.

But repeated negative when searching for an unknown thing is also growing evidence of nonexistence.

Naturalism is the first thing such a procedure rules out.

No, it does not rule it out. It proceeds with the assumption of supernatural causes and effects, but does not assert them any more than methodological naturalism asserts naturalism.
In a way, it is a conflict you cannot win. If a supernatural cause of our behavior is ever demonstrated, the cause will cease to be supernatural. It becomes part of the full natural description of the universe. It gets relegated to 'more physics'.

[Immanuel Can]

unless it is not your mind producing your posts, which would explain their content a bit more...

Ah yes...my old friend the ad hominem. I wondered how long it would be until that came out...

Give it a try. An immaterial consciousness is the source of your opinion, and is the origin of your physical posts in this thread.

That, plus your subsequent disclaimers, is what you came up with? I was pretty sure you didn't know.

You're asserting that a materialist must assign properties like mass to an idea. So you're retracting that now?

Now you reword it, and drop "object"? Who's misrepresenting views now?

Do I retract the idea that Materialists must assign some sort of material property to ideas? No, not a bit. It's true. It's absolutely what their view requires.

I categorically did not. You're mistaking me for someone else. Go back and look, if you doubt it.

Ambiguous grammar. Sorry. I took the comment for brain tasks.

Apology accepted. No problem: it can happen.

But repeated negative when searching for an unknown thing is also growing evidence of nonexistence.

Yes, it is at least an indicator of the probability of the hypothesis in question. It may not be capable of closing the books, but if a repeated and diligent search in all plausible locations and situations has been made for an entity, and no one has discovered said entity, then we can induce a case for its non-existence...at least until additional evidence comes in.

And that's what people generally do.

Naturalism is the first thing such a procedure rules out.

No, it does not rule it out. It proceeds with the assumption of supernatural causes and effects, but does not assert them any more than methodological naturalism asserts naturalism.

Well, that's just not true. Naturalism is not a methodology but a dogma. But this is distinct from using such an ideology as a methodological strategy or an heuristic device. Even an ardent Theist could, for example, temporarily adopt a methodological Atheism without conceding one bit that Atheism was true. He could do it, for example, to better articulate his opponents' views, so as to understand their flaws.

But Naturalism itself is the attitude that precedes a person adopting any methodology at all.

In a way, it is a conflict you cannot win. If a supernatural cause of our behavior is ever demonstrated, the cause will cease to be supernatural. It becomes part of the full natural description of the universe. It gets relegated to 'more physics'.

Not so.

Perhaps you misunderstand what "demonstration" entails. You're talking again like a "demonstration" closes the book on a question, rather than, say, providing plausibility to a theory. You forget that human knowing is merely probabilistic. In other words, physics only tells us what we are wise to expect to happen, all things being equal and no unforeseen circumstances intervening. But what happens if those latter conditions for some reason to not apply, even physics cannot tell us in advance.

For example, physics might give us the formula to know when a bridge will collapse as a result of the deterioration of old age -- metal fatigue, thermal flex, salt damage, and so on -- if we have all the variables. But physics can't tells that three years before that a flood will sweep the bridge away. Even physics has to have all the right variables in hand, or it is only guess-making.

Though physics looks the closest in form to pure mathematics, unlike maths it does not provide certain proof, nor does it deliver absolute truth; the world is an uncertain place for us. Physics is empirical, not a closed system. So we have to decide how to interpret what it tells us, and decide what we should believe.

In that respect, perhaps it's a bit like faith.

Were physics absolute, perhaps you could make such a case. As it is, you cannot make that plausibly.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and any motion of matter can be described by laws of nature.

Your thought?

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.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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".

I've been pushing it as one: Belief that naturalism is complete, without need of additional supernatural additions.

By "not a belief system", do you mean more like a lack of need for active belief in nonexistence of orbiting teapots and such?

I mean by 'belief" by a system that relies on faith, whereas a epistemic methodology makes clear its assumptions, and builds on knowledge, and evidence.
This obviates the 'supernatural" which relies on unsubstantiated assertions that phenomena are caused by things that are beyond nature. Nature on the other hand is those things which are materially evident. It has been the case that explanations which wholly include factors that are wholly materially evident have historically successfully replaced all interpretations of phenomena previously explained by supernatural forces and miracles (which are cases where nature is interrupted).
We tend to forget just how much the supernatural, the divine, and the miraculous were once the every day thread of life; and just how remarkably successful materialism and naturalism have been.
You have only to consult Hume on miracles or say Hobbes to reveal just how hopelessly ensnared by childish superstitions we once were. Additionally we sometimes forget how hopelessly mired in ridiculous superstition people still are.

[Noax]

Ah yes...my old friend the ad hominem. I wondered how long it would be until that came out...

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

Give it a try. An immaterial consciousness is the source of your opinion, and is the origin of your physical posts in this thread.

That, plus your subsequent disclaimers, is what you came up with? I was pretty sure you didn't know.

I can't think of a variant of dualism that doesn't have these characteristics, and you've not been big on supplying details, so no, I don't know your full view. Did I get part of it wrong? I mean it is my claim that you need to either explain the bridge or the lack of need for such an explanation. I'm sure your description of your view is not going to include the pointing out of its primary fault.

You're not a Chalmers follower. I'm not all that familiar with the views of various big names.

You're asserting that a materialist must assign properties like mass to an idea. So you're retracting that now?

Now you reword it, and drop "object"? Who's misrepresenting views now?

I must guess. You provide no details.

Do I retract the idea that Materialists must assign some sort of material property to ideas? No, not a bit. It's true. It's absolutely what their view requires.

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. Maybe you could defend this story instead of making me play 20 questions.

But repeated negative when searching for an unknown thing is also growing evidence of nonexistence.

Yes, it is at least an indicator of the probability of the hypothesis in question. It may not be capable of closing the books, but if a repeated and diligent search in all plausible locations and situations has been made for an entity, and no one has discovered said entity, then we can induce a case for its non-existence...at least until additional evidence comes in.

And that's what people generally do.

Naturalism is the first thing such a procedure rules out.

No, it does not rule it out. It proceeds with the assumption of supernatural causes and effects, but does not assert them any more than methodological naturalism asserts naturalism.

Well, that's just not true. Naturalism is not a methodology but a dogma.

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand what "demonstration" entails. You're talking again like a "demonstration" closes the book on a question, rather than, say, providing plausibility to a theory.

Didn't say that. Open a new book is more like it. I agree that a demonstration of the dualistic arrangement would not constitute a book closing on explanations.

You forget that human knowing is merely probabilistic. In other words, physics only tells us what we are wise to expect to happen, all things being equal and no unforeseen circumstances intervening. But what happens if those latter conditions for some reason to not apply, even physics cannot tell us in advance.

That's a good place to look, yes.

For example, physics might give us the formula to know when a bridge will collapse as a result of the deterioration of old age -- metal fatigue, thermal flex, salt damage, and so on -- if we have all the variables. But physics can't tells that three years before that a flood will sweep the bridge away. Even physics has to have all the right variables in hand, or it is only guess-making.

Agree on all. Physics cannot make extended predictions of chaotic functions.

Though physics looks the closest in form to pure mathematics, unlike maths it does not provide certain proof, nor does it deliver absolute truth; the world is an uncertain place for us. Physics is empirical, not a closed system. So we have to decide how to interpret what it tells us, and decide what we should believe.

In that respect, perhaps it's a bit like faith.

Nobody claims science/physics describes final truth. You sort of dropped the ball above as to where your demonstration might fit in. It has been proven that physics cannot perfectly predict the future. Trivial to demonstrate this. So lack of our ability to simulate faster than reality is not a proof of anything.

[Noax]

I did. It was just so goofy I didn't imagine you were trying to be serious. Were you?

I've given my reasons against the plausibility of it. It is as Hobbes puts it, the continued clinging to ancient superstition. In my posts I acknowledge the vast majority view of humanity and qualify my position with active belief. Your view is not like the teapot in that way.

"Valid" is a logic term in philosophy. You mean "possible," I think.

I meant the logic expressed by the statement was valid logic.

Off topic comment:

... 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.