Anti-materialist philosophy?

[bumab]

Against materialism:

 

 

An argument I heard the other day- not saying I endorse it, but it's interesting to me on philisophical grounds:

 

Premise- Materialism is true. Materialism (defined as mat) is the belief that all things are purely physical objects, and consist of only one type of thing- physcial things.

[therefore there is no soul, mind, etc. other than what is physical]

 

Arguement:

 

1. Material objects are physical things.

2. Physical things have a set (infinite) of properties that can be described in a singular way- spatially.

-this atom is this far from that atom, etc etc.

-my toes are 6 feet from my head, etc.

-my neurons are arranged in such a way as to...

-my horomones are in such a place relative to my neurons. you get the point.

3. All physical things can be described in such a way, completely internally, with no need to reference the properties of anything else.

----

1a. I have a desire for a an imperial ipa with certain hop characterstics right now.

2a. To describe me, you must therefore describe the beer.

3a. that description MUST include non-spatial refrences to be complete.

---

4. if 3a is true, and 3 is true, (mat) is false (impossibility contradiction).

 

I'm not sure if I presented this argument well- when I heard it, I found it to be the most reasonably compelling argument against materialism i'd heard up to this point. If it wasn't clear, let me know.

 

Anyway- tear it apart. See any logical errors? Attack!

[adnaan]

Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:

 

The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.

 

Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.

 

Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.

 

The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being-or rather, it was created by "God."

 

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.

 

To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism supposedly collapsed into fiction in the 20th.

[Harzburgite]

1. Material objects are physical things.

2. Physical things have a set (infinite) of properties that can be described in a singular way- spatially.................

-Anyway- tear it apart. See any logical errors? Attack!

Easy. Statement 2 is incomplete. The properties of things cannot solely be defined by their spatial co-ordinates.

[Erasmus00]

The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being-or rather, it was created by "God."

 

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.

 

To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism supposedly collapsed into fiction in the 20th.

 

To address your points: First, the big bang does not prove that the universe is created by a god. Some cosmological models of the universe have a fixed 4-dimensional object, as Stephen Hawking talks about in Universe in a Nutshell and A Brief History of Time(can't think of any other popular accounts of cosmology right now). This wouldn't need a creator. Some theories also indicate the universe could have vaccuum fluctuated into existance.

 

Now, as to the anthropic principle, this doesn't point to design. It is true that small changes in universal constants would make the universe a very different place. So different humans probably could not survive. However, its very arrogant to assume that just because humans couldn't survive, other intelligent life could not as well.

 

Now, what if there have been an infinite number of universes, and this one is uniquely suited to us simply because it managed to provide for us. You assume that the universe was made for us, I assume that the we developed inside the universe, so we adapted to live in it. The fact that humans live in a universe that supports humans is hardly supportive of creationism.

-Will

[bumab]

Easy. Statement 2 is incomplete. The properties of things cannot solely be defined by their spatial co-ordinates.

 

Alright-

 

Things have properties which do not rely on the properties of other things to be described.

[UncleAl]

Things have properties which do not rely on the properties of other things to be described.

Nope. Won't work. Start with an empty universe. Add a spinning neutron star with angular spin rate omega. Orbit a planet around it with orbital rate omega and rotation rate omega. No problem. An observer then enters. He sees a stationary planet hovering above a neutron star. What keeps them apart against gravitation? Forget a Foucault pendulum on the planet - no background against which to reference it. (google "Mach's Prnciple")

 

If you want to quantitatively describe anything you need at least one of a minimum of seven orthogonal external standards - length, mass, time, current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of stuff (moles), luminous intensity.

[Fishteacher73]

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.

 

By this notion it could be called the "anything" priciple. The laws of the universe are such that a piece iof dried wood burns when struck by lightening. Does this mean that the whole reason for the universe is for that piece of wood to burn? No. I think you should labl;e such an idea as the anthropocentric principle. And this has continually been shown to be false.

[Fishteacher73]

If you want to quantitatively describe anything you need at least one of a minimum of seven orthogonal external standards - length, mass, time, current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of stuff (moles), luminous intensity.

 

Yet all of these bits of information have to have some comparison value. There must be a designated meter to know what 6 meters is. Velocity is relative to another point (and therefore time).

 

Nothing can be described without reference to a set standard or some other known.

[bumab]

If you want to quantitatively describe anything you need at least one of a minimum of seven orthogonal external standards - length, mass, time, current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of stuff (moles), luminous intensity.

 

But none of those are spatial, material things. Those are abstract, immaterial quantities.

 

If I were to describe a cup of coffee, I could entirely describe every aspect of it by describing the location of all the molocules relative to all other objects spatially. I would also include information about the coffee- temperature, mass, etc.

 

To describe a person who has a mental state directed at that coffee, however, takes more. It's not enough to describe the persons location spatially and internal characteristics. One must also describe the desire for coffee. That desire cannot be described without describing the coffee as well. Thus, there are aspects of people and their mental states which cannot be described spatially or internally. The desire for something cannot be described as a material object, but the desire for something is certainly a part of that person which must be included to completly describe all properties of that person.

 

Thus, the materialist belief is incorrect, since (as it was origionally stated) all material things can be described spatially (and in addition) and with refrence to their internal characteristics.

 

 

Ah, mind games :hihi: Is that more clear?

[bumab]

Easy. Statement 2 is incomplete. The properties of things cannot solely be defined by their spatial co-ordinates.

 

Speaking materialistically, what properties are there that cannot be described solely by spatial location and velocity?

 

Temperature can, size can, density can, charge can, on and on...

[Fishteacher73]

To describe a person who has a mental state directed at that coffee, however, takes more. It's not enough to describe the persons location spatially and internal characteristics. One must also describe the desire for coffee. That desire cannot be described without describing the coffee as well. Thus, there are aspects of people and their mental states which cannot be described spatially or internally. The desire for something cannot be described as a material object, but the desire for something is certainly a part of that person which must be included to completly describe all properties of that person.

 

Thus, the materialist belief is incorrect, since (as it was origionally stated) all material things can be described spatially (and in addition) and with refrence to their internal characteristics.

 

This is based on our lack of understanding of mental function. We already can use mri's to gauge basic feelings and perceptions of things. With better instuments I feel we could map out a neral pathway indicating plaesure and with enough study to map out specific thoughts relating to specific neural pathways. So there feasably could be a picture of a neural chain that represents desire for a cup of joe. Independent of the cup of coffee, one could therefore describe a longing by said neural map.

[bumab]

This is based on our lack of understanding of mental function. We already can use mri's to gauge basic feelings and perceptions of things. With better instuments I feel we could map out a neral pathway indicating plaesure and with enough study to map out specific thoughts relating to specific neural pathways. So there feasably could be a picture of a neural chain that represents desire for a cup of joe. Independent of the cup of coffee, one could therefore describe a longing by said neural map.

 

Certainly- but that wasn't the crux of the argument I heard. While one can describe the desire for coffee with material descriptors, I want THAT cup of coffee- specifically, that one. To describe me, you must then give additional information about that coffee I specifically want. That additional information is the idea of the argument. If I am identical to my physical body then that additional information shouldn't be needed (the information about that cup of coffee). If, however, I am seperate from my body (any sort of dualism) then of course you need to describe other things.

 

A good response I can see (from the materialist perspective) would be saying phyical events can be mental. So in describing my mental state of wanting that specific cup of coffee, it's perfectly fair to describe that mental state as wanting a cup of coffee. The rebuttal (and the first argument) therefore hinge on whether a mental event can be physical.

[Qfwfq]

You support 3) but not 3a), now, let's see... put it in these terms: you can describe a thing and the state it's in and this may be such that it will have certain reactions to certain stimulae. This doesn't mean the above description must include a description of each possible stimulus.

 

The yourself that you have decribed is such that the stimulus of seeing the cup of coffee will cause the reaction of wanting to taste it.

[bumab]

You support 3) but not 3a)

 

I'll redefine 3a, if you will let me:

 

A person is such that a complete description of which requires use of not only spatial information but also intentionality information, which is non-spatial, and thus non-material.

 

4a) Thus, a complete description of a person cannot be done by soley describing it's parts.

5a) Thus a person consists of more then parts.

6a) Thus, (mat) is false

 

Support for 3a:

 

I can be in the mental state of wanting a particular cup of coffee. That desire cannot be described soley by describing my parts, because to describe that desire, you must talk about the parts of some other object. The requirement that you describe something else, independent of me, shows that you cannot make a complete description of me by only describing my parts.

 

Well?

[Qfwfq]

A person is such that a complete description of which requires use of not only spatial information but also intentionality information, which is non-spatial, and thus non-material.

What's "intentionality information"? I talked about the state of the system, independently of the stimulae that, potentially, may cause a reaction. The propensity to desire something, because it belongs to a category (such as "cup of coffe"), is part of that system. Liking coffee is part of the system that likes coffee.