Philosophy Now Forum

he has this idea that determinists are materialists

Is Mannie wrong to think this?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:03 am

he has this idea that determinists are materialists

Is Mannie wrong to think this?

Yes, he is wrong.

There is nothing in determinism that requires materialism.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:21 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:03 am

he has this idea that determinists are materialists

Is Mannie wrong to think this?

Yes, he is wrong.

There is nothing in determinism that requires materialism.

And vice versa as well. The two concepts are not tightly coupled at all.

So, there's 4 viable categories I guess. Determinist materialist, determinist immaterialist, indeterminist materialist, and indeterminist immaterialist (and obviously you can get people who don't lean one way or the other, or potentially even think either question is a false dichotomy)

If you ask someone "are you a determinist?", their answer doesn't do anything to answer the question "are you a materialist?", and vice versa.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:21 amYes, he is wrong.

There is nothing in determinism that requires materialism.

So Determinism is anti-scientific then...

According to Determinists, there is no 'Causal' force, potency, potential... in Sodium and Potassium, that could produce an explosion?

There is no Cause to chemical reactions, because there is nothing Causal in their separated Elements?



So what do Hard Determinists actually believe in then???

(I agree with your premise, by the way)

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:21 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:03 am

he has this idea that determinists are materialists

Is Mannie wrong to think this?

Yes, he is wrong.

There is nothing in determinism that requires materialism.

Can you explain how necessitarianism (or, determinism, if you prefer) isn't, or doesn't have to be, rooted in materialism?

And: required or not, aren't most necessitarians materialists?

Hard Determinists are indeed Materialists. They claim, when convenient, that "muh Physics" and "muh Science" factually prove causal forces, within physical nature and reality.

The problem with Hard Determinists...is they don't actually do any science, nor really understand science and physics in any meaningful way.

Can you explain how necessitarianism (or, determinism, if you prefer) isn't, or doesn't have to be, rooted in materialism?

And: required or not, aren't most necessitarians materialists?

A cause makes something happen.

It can be material or immaterial. It's not restricted by the definition.

Immaterial causes can produce material or immaterial effects. Which then become causes for more effects. Which is the chain of events in determinism.

We live in a physical universe and so ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain. If you want to think about it at a low level of abstraction. Usually, talking about desires is more useful than talking about the chemical/electrical state of the brain.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:34 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:21 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:03 am

Is Mannie wrong to think this?

Yes, he is wrong.

There is nothing in determinism that requires materialism.

Can you explain how necessitarianism (or, determinism, if you prefer) isn't, or doesn't have to be, rooted in materialism?

And: required or not, aren't most necessitarians materialists?

"Materialism" as usually articulated, usually by those that don't like it, tends to be rather limited to considerations about matter alone.
But we all know that reality and the shit that happens in it is also about energy, and its interactions with matter.
A brain which is just matter is dead. Obviously it requires energising with the living systems that sustain it.
Thus when you make a choice the energy in the brain structures are what are the causes of your actions and decisions.
Since most smart people have figured out that a dead brain tends to make no decisions, when it comes to determinism there is not much more it can do but rot. But even for that rotting process energetic bacteria are involved in the brak down of those tissues; tissues that once held the memories and personality of the owner..

So I would say of determinism depended on anything it would be physcalism which would pay mreo heed to both energy and matter.
On the other hand, most materialists are regardles of their detractors perfectly aware of the value of energy and matter in interaction.
But no one really gives a shit about "isms" and the best of people are not constrained by someone else's definitions.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm

Generally speaking, energy isn't meant as some kind of different category of thing when people are talking about materialism. Neither materialists nor anti materialists think of materialism as "matter without energy".

And after all, matter and energy are interchangable according to relativity right? They aren't 2 different things, they're different types of the same thing.

"Materialism" as usually articulated, usually by those that don't like it, tends to be rather limited to considerations about matter alone.

I've never personally seen that, but if those people are explicitly excluding energy, or really any other thing in the remit of physics, they're being silly.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:50 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm

Generally speaking, energy isn't meant as some kind of different category of thing when people are talking about materialism. Neither materialists nor anti materialists think of materialism as "matter without energy".

And after all, matter and energy are interchangable according to relativity right? They aren't 2 different things, they're different types of the same thing.

"Materialism" as usually articulated, usually by those that don't like it, tends to be rather limited to considerations about matter alone.

I've never personally seen that, but if those people are explicitly excluding energy, or really any other thing in the remit of physics, they're being silly.

People who want to traduce the idea of materialism usually start by offering a strawman, in my experience.
It's usually followed up by some sort of unfounded claim about souls or spirits.

I do not buy energy and matrer as the same thing. It has been hugely useful in science to understand that they are two different things, whihc exist inependantly of each other.
This has had massive consequnces in our understanding of the universe, expecially with the discovery of heat for example.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:54 pm People who want to traduce the idea of materialism usually start by offering a strawman

I certainly agree that it's a strawman, a ridiculous one at that.

Has anyone in this conversation done that?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:01 pm

Can you explain how necessitarianism (or, determinism, if you prefer) isn't, or doesn't have to be, rooted in materialism?

And: required or not, aren't most necessitarians materialists?

A cause makes something happen.

It can be material or immaterial. It's not restricted by the definition.

Immaterial causes can produce material or immaterial effects. Which then become causes for more effects. Which is the chain of events in determinism.

We live in a physical universe and so ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain. If you want to think about it at a low level of abstraction. Usually, talking about desires is more useful than talking about the chemical/electrical state of the brain.

It seems to me what you're sayin' is it's all material (ultimately immaterial "things" like memories, desires, wants and values are some configuration of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain).

What would be an immaterial cause (A cause makes something happen. It can be material or immaterial.)

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm

I've always taken materialism to refer to matter, heat, light, electricity etc.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:54 pm People who want to traduce the idea of materialism usually start by offering a strawman

I certainly agree that it's a strawman, a ridiculous one at that.

Has anyone in this conversation done that?

Not yet.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:08 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm

I've always taken materialism to refer to matter, heat, light, electricity etc.

And is there something wrong with looking at the world this way?