An excellent article on materialism!

[Interesting Ian]

Go here.

 

[hammegk]

The good news is that our non-immaterialists here have no idea what they are, so nothing in the article effects or affects them.

 

[Mercutio]

On first reading, I have my usual complaint with this (although I agree, it appears to be a very nice summary of quite a lot of stuff): that is, their "behaviorism" is out of date. Radical Behaviorism is quite different from the behaviorist view described in this paper...I scrolled ahead to see if they included it later, but it appears not to be there...I must read it more thoroughly when I can.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian and hammegk,

I am puzzled as to why either of you would accept a non-materialist's description of what materialism is, to be valid, and then claim that people who actually are materialists don't know what materialism is.

If I want to know what Catholicism is, I am not going to ask a Lutheran. If I want to know what Buddhism is, I am not going to ask a Jew. If I want to know what Idealism is, I am not going to ask a Scientologist, and if I want to know what materialism is, I am not going to ask either of you.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

On first reading, I have my usual complaint with this (although I agree, it appears to be a very nice summary of quite a lot of stuff): that is, their "behaviorism" is out of date. Radical Behaviorism is quite different from the behaviorist view described in this paper...I scrolled ahead to see if they included it later, but it appears not to be there...I must read it more thoroughly when I can.

You keep saying peoples understanding of behaviourism is out of date LOL As far as I'm concerned, if its meaning has changed since what that Watson guy said, then it should no longer be described as behaviourism.

Behavourism has long since been discredited. Modern materialists tend to be functionalists. Your "radical behaviourism" is standing out in the cold freezing its nuts off

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian and hammegk,

I am puzzled as to why either of you would accept a non-materialist's description of what materialism is, to be valid, and then claim that people who actually are materialists don't know what materialism is.

He's a non-materialist is he? Thanks for informing me! I can't seem to recall him saying that. I should learn to read more carefully.


Anyway, I see nothing at all wrong with his description of the various materialist positions. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the errors in his descriptions?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I tried to read it, really.

To many things ending in "ism" for me.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

If I want to know what Catholicism is, I am not going to ask a Lutheran. If I want to know what Buddhism is, I am not going to ask a Jew. If I want to know what Idealism is, I am not going to ask a Scientologist, and if I want to know what materialism is, I am not going to ask either of you.

That gets me thinking of a quote...something like: "If you want to know what a man is really like, ask his enemy".

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

...standing out in the cold freezing its nuts off

Hey dude, you stole that phrase from me. I didn't say you could use it. Well, I guess it's ok.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Take someone lacking a certain sensible capacity from birth — they are completely deaf, for example. Suppose, too, that they have learned all that a completed physical science could tell them about the physical processes and the functional organization of the hearing mechanism: call them 'the Deaf Scientist'. Third, suppose that they then gain their hearing. They would then gain some new knowledge, namely what it is like to hear, or what sound is experientially like. As they knew all the physical and functional information before, this kind of knowledge must concern something over and above the physical and functional; so the content of experience is something over and above the physical and functional.

This article strikes me as a New York Review of Each Other's Books: This guy is talking about what other philosophers think about materialism. Interesting, but not necessarily relevant to "what I am."

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

...standing out in the cold freezing its nuts off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey dude, you stole that phrase from me. I didn't say you could use it. Well, I guess it's ok.

Damn, I reckoned there was an extraordinary small chance you would actually be reading this! Guess I've been caught out

But it's a compliment really. I mean I'm using it cos I like it! LOL

Yes I know, I should have asked your permission first LOL

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Anyway, I see nothing at all wrong with his description of the various materialist positions. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the errors in his descriptions?

Well, for one thing, he starts it off with this:

Materialism — which, for almost all purposes, is the same as physicalism — is the theory that everything that exists is material.

No materialist would describe it this way. It is too ambiguous, and gives the distinct impression that what is being talked about is metaphysical materialism. Furthermore, it is not even a true statement about materialism. It is, rather, exactly the type of mischaracterization of materialism that dualists are so fond of attacking.

Another point of interest is that this is pretty much the extent of the description of materialism here. The rest goes into how it relates to issues of the mind. But you cannot reasonably discuss how materialism applies to such issues without first explaining what materialism is. And even if the above were an accurate statement about materialism (which it isn't), it is a far cry from an actual explanation of what materialism is.

The rest of the article amounts to nothing more that declaring that there are "problems" with materialism when applying it to the mind, and then making repeated assertions about how materialism deals with those problems, which it goes on to attack.

About the only positive thing I can say about the article, is that unlike you, the author at least acknowledges that materialism has changed significantly over the last century. But his understanding of what is currently called materialism, and the manner in which modern materialism attempts to address the issue of consciousness, is clearly still bogged down by a huge amount of dualistically oriented conceptual baggage.

Again, I find it odd that when materialists try to explain what there position is to you, you scream "That's not materialism", and refuse to listen, but when you read a description of materialism written by somebody who clearly is not one, you have no trouble accepting it.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It also begs the question of whether it's possible to describe anything as truly physical.

Either we construct a concept from a group of examples, and call that concept 'physical', or we have a conceptual definition that we can apply to various hypothetical examples and sort them accordingly.

So: are we using the first or second method when we talk about "physical, material" things?

 

[Mercutio]

You keep saying peoples understanding of behaviourism is out of date LOL As far as I'm concerned, if its meaning has changed since what that Watson guy said, then it should no longer be described as behaviourism.

Then call it "Radical Behaviorism", and note that your article does not mention it at all. And note that any attack on Watson as representative of modern behaviorism is pure strawman tactics.

And I "keep saying" it because you keep using the out-of-date stuff after having been corrected many many times.

Behavourism has long since been discredited. Modern materialists tend to be functionalists. Your "radical behaviourism" is standing out in the cold freezing its nuts off

Radical Behaviorism is functionalist in the extreme, Ian, which you would know if you had taken the time to look. Watson's behaviorism has been discredited, or rather it has been abandoned in favor of better models...which you would know if you had taken the time to look. Your analysis, Ian, displays your ignorance.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Don't get into a wrestling contest with a muddy pig, Mercutio. You'll only get covered in filth, but the pig will enjoy it.

Search your feelings. You know my statement to be true. Step away from the Dark Side, and enter the Light.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Then call it "Radical Behaviorism", and note that your article does not mention it at all. And note that any attack on Watson as representative of modern behaviorism is pure strawman tactics.

And I "keep saying" it because you keep using the out-of-date stuff after having been corrected many many times.
Radical Behaviorism is functionalist in the extreme, Ian, which you would know if you had taken the time to look. Watson's behaviorism has been discredited, or rather it has been abandoned in favor of better models...which you would know if you had taken the time to look. Your analysis, Ian, displays your ignorance. [/B]

LMAO!

Your radical behaviourism isn't materialism. You acknowledge the existence of private experiences (what you refer to oxymoronically as "private behaviour")

 

[Mercutio]

LMAO!

Your radical behaviourism isn't materialism. You acknowledge the existence of private experiences (what you refer to oxymoronically as "private behaviour")

Oooh, you got me! (You actually have been listening sometimes!)

True, it is pragmatic rather than materialist. Guess I got carried away, I am so used to correcting your misconceptions about it.

I suppose this would explain why it is not mentioned in an article on materialism...so I will eat my words and go about my way.

M

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

How does that point contradict with any conceptualizations of materialism, exactly?

There's a significant difference between saying "we can't explore the physical incarnation of such behaviors at the moment" and "the physical incarnation of such behaviors cannot be explored".

Again: what exactly do we mean when we discuss "materialism", and whose definition are we using?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Materialism is a monism that denies sufficient aspects of reality so that it makes an excellent strawman for idealists.

See, you can read all these definitions and it will become clear. That is, clear what a strawman is made of it here.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:materialism

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I see nothing at all wrong with his description of the various materialist positions. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the errors in his descriptions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, for one thing, he starts it off with this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialism — which, for almost all purposes, is the same as physicalism — is the theory that everything that exists is material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No materialist would describe it this way.

Then they either do not understand what it means, or they are bing dishonest. Materialism means only the material exists, hence the name! Deal with it.

It is too ambiguous, and gives the distinct impression that what is being talked about is metaphysical materialism.

Materialism is by definition a metaphysical position. I've told you many many times before. You are confusing materialism with naturalism (although even naturalism has a metaphysical thesis ie all existents obey natural laws).

Furthermore, it is not even a true statement about materialism.

Oh yes? How would you know? You're a scientist, not a philosopher. There is no point in you using the word "materialism" in a differing way from everyone else on the planet.

Another point of interest is that this is pretty much the extent of the description of materialism here. The rest goes into how it relates to issues of the mind. But you cannot reasonably discuss how materialism applies to such issues without first explaining what materialism is. And even if the above were an accurate statement about materialism (which it isn't), it is a far cry from an actual explanation of what materialism is.

The entry is about materialism as it applies to the philosophy of mind. And besides, no one has ever really said what the material is apart from saying it is the sole existent, or it exists etc.

Again, I find it odd that when materialists try to explain what there position is to you, you scream "That's not materialism", and refuse to listen, but when you read a description of materialism written by somebody who clearly is not one, you have no trouble accepting it.

Well it's appalling that the "materialism in the philosophy of mind" entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is so much in error. I recommend you contact them and point out the errors (which remain unspecified). Perhaps you could recommend that you write the entry yourself?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Then they either do not understand what it means, or they are bing dishonest. Materialism means only the material exists, hence the name! Deal with it.

I very much doubt you want to stick with this. If so, then idealism must mean that only the ideal exists. And ketchupism must mean that only ketchup exists. And thus it becomes quite clear that all monisms are equivalent.

~~ Paul