Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[RandFan]

It would take a single human being a number of lifetimes to be anywhere near as dynamic as a tsunami.

I don't see how. The human brain is very likely the most complex adaptive system in the known universe. The range of dynamics is not really fathomable and can't at this moment be modeled by our most powerful computers. Tsunamis are complex but they can be modeled and pale in comparison to the human brain.

And what is it about Stalin that should give us the idea that he was capable of empathy or compassion?

Odd, I don't think we were talking about Stalin. Or are you trying to disprove the rule by the exception?

 

[stillthinkin]

I don't see how. The human brain is very likely the most complex adaptive system in the known universe. The range of dynamics is not really fathomable and can't at this moment be modeled by our most powerful computers. Tsunamis are complex but they can be modeled and pale in comparison to the human brain.

The activity of the billions of gallons of water covering the earth is vastly complex, and is no more modeled than the weather. Its adaptation to its conditions is vastly complex - each molecule of water and each molecule of the salts and substances dissolved in it are involved. Why else would life emerge in the oceans? A tsunami is an adaptation on the part of the ocean to its conditions.
Conversely, human behaviour was modelled very well by Aristotle many years ago, when he said "the good is that which all desire".

Odd, I don't think we were talking about Stalin. Or are you trying to disprove the rule by the exception?

The comparison was between Stalin and a tsunami:

By this way of thinking, Stalin was no different than a tsunami, 9/11 no different than a tornado.

 

[AWPrime]

How would something material ever be wrong? How does the chain of causality among physical things ever amount to being "wrong"?

An example:

A person greets you and asks if he can come in to your home, you say yes. However you couldn't have seen that he has a gun on his back, he then shoots you and steals your money.

You in this example was wrong in your assessment, this assessment was based upon what you could see and your experiences with others, both of which are limited.

 

[chriswl]

So you are saying that an immaterial thing could not physically affect a material thing... I would say "some philosophers make this up without basis".

For the third, or is it the fourth time now, this is an empirically observable fact which has nothing at all to do with materialism. Pick any monism or dualism you like it won't go away. Are you going to keep ignoring this objection?

Let's be clear. If the causes of physical phenomena were something other than physical, this could not be acommodated by our laws of physics. We would see anomalies when examining the functioning of the brain, effects that had no visible physical cause.

Any scientist who made such an earth-shattering discovery would be instantly famous, and yet none of them appear to be even looking for this. No one who understands anything about the brain thinks that it does anything other than follow the laws of physics.

This doesn't mean that materialism is true. Science can't prove materialism. Conscousness could still exist as an epiphenomenon. But you want it to be more than that.

 

[stillthinkin]

An example:

A person greets you and asks if he can come in to your home, you say yes. However you couldn't have seen that he has a gun on his back, he then shoots you and steals your money.

You in this example was wrong in your assessment, this assessment was based upon what you could see and your experiences with others, both of which are limited.

How was this an example of "wrong"? Material stuff did stuff, then some material stuff went through some other stuff, and there is a bunch of stuff left. The same stuff that was there before, just rearranged. Explain where the "wrong" comes in.

 

[RandFan]

The activity of the billions of gallons of water covering the earth is vastly complex and is no more modeled than the weather. Its adaptation to its conditions is vastly complex - each molecule of water and each molecule of the salts and substances dissolved in it are involved. Why else would life emerge in the oceans? A tsunami is an adaptation on the part of the ocean to its conditions.

Non the less humans are making great strides to model the weather.

IBM Research Weather Modeling Group
Atmospheric Modeling and Weather Forecasting Group.
Weather Numerical Models and Forecasts

Conversely, human behaviour was modelled very well by Aristotle many years ago, when he said "the good is that which all desire".

That's not at all what I meant by modeling. As a programmer you really should know better than that... unless you really don't know what a Mathematical model. I suppose that's possible.

To correct my earlier statement let me state that,

1.) We can in fact, to a degree, model the brain.
2.) We can't precisely model the weather.

That being said, it is not controversial to say that we can far better model the Earth's weather than we can the brain.

The comparison was between Stalin and a tsunami:

You are correct. I apologize.

Perhaps the things I type have my mind and person as their source? But you would have me believe, for the sake of the unverifiable tenet of materialism, that I am an illusion of my body. By this way of thinking, Stalin was no different than a tsunami, 9/11 no different than a tornado.

A tsunami is not as dynamic as a human and does not have the potential for empathy or compassion. Otherwise, yes.

I stand by my statement. The difference is capacity otherwise, yes.

 

[AWPrime]

A person greets you and asks if he can come in to your home, you say yes. However you couldn't have seen that he has a gun on his back, he then shoots you and steals your money.

You in this example was wrong in your assessment, this assessment was based upon what you could see and your experiences with others, both of which are limited.

How was this an example of "wrong"? Material stuff did stuff, then some material stuff went through some other stuff, and there is a bunch of stuff left. The same stuff that was there before, just rearranged. Explain where the "wrong" comes in.

If it was right/perfect you wouldn't have been shot. It makes it clear that material processes may get a wrong interpretation of the situation.

 

[stillthinkin]

For the third, or is it the fourth time now, this is an empirically observable fact which has nothing at all to do with materialism. Pick any monism or dualism you like it won't go away. Are you going to keep ignoring this objection?

Let's be clear. If the causes of physical phenomena were something other than physical, this could not be acommodated by our laws of physics. We would see anomalies when examining the functioning of the brain, effects that had no visible physical cause.

Any scientist who made such an earth-shattering discovery would be instantly famous, and yet none of them appear to be even looking for this. No one who understands anything about the brain thinks that it does anything other than follow the laws of physics.

This doesn't mean that materialism is true. Science can't prove materialism. Conscousness could still exist as an epiphenomenon. But you want it to be more than that.

It seems to me that this thread is straying from discussing materialism to discussing dualism and other theories of consciousness...

Obviously, if materialism is incoherent, or if there is some known phenomenon it cannot explain (a counter-example to materialism) - then we know the truth lies elsewhere - regardless of any theory of consciousness. At that point, we would know that while materialist theories might explain an awful lot, we also know that it is not complete, it is not a "theory of everything". This is what happened to Newtonian mechanics, for example - phenomena were observed that violated the laws of newtonian mechanics. At that point, we might be limited to an "I dont know" position regarding what materialism cannot explain.

Now, obviously if an immaterial thing has the power to influence a material thing, then either it can do this without violating the currently known laws of physics, or it does this in violation of the currently known laws of physics, and these need to be expanded upon.

Anyway, as I have said, this isnt really the subject of this thread. I would suggest you start or join another one if you want to discuss theories of consciousness.

 

[stillthinkin]

If it was right/perfect you wouldn't have been shot. It makes it clear that material processes may get a wrong interpretation of the situation.

You mean the bullet shouldnt have gone through me after it left the gun? What material process went "wrong"?

 

[RandFan]

Obviously, if materialism is incoherent...

? I don't think that there is any concensus that materialism is incoherent. On the contrary.

...or if there is some known phenomenon it cannot explain (a counter-example to materialism) - then we know the truth lies elsewhere -

This is simply argument from ignorance.

 

[stillthinkin]

? I don't think that there is any concensus that materialism is incoherent. On the contrary.

What I said was:

if materialism is incoherent, or if there is some known phenomenon it cannot explain (a counter-example to materialism) - then we know the truth lies elsewhere - regardless of any theory of consciousness

This is simply argument from ignorance.

A counter example is not argument from ignorance. Perhaps I should have said "cannot possibly explain". Is that better?

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps I should have said "cannot possibly explain". Is that better?

What is your basis to claim "cannot possibly explain"? This seems rather dogmatic and antithetical to scientific inquiry.

 

[AWPrime]

What material process went "wrong"?

The matter worked as it should but the conclusion still didn't match reality, and that is the anwser to the question:

The question was "how can matter confuse things". The question still stands. Again, please dont presume the hypothesis.

 

[stillthinkin]

What is your basis to claim "cannot possibly explain"? This seems rather dogmatic and antithetical to scientific inquiry.

I gave an example. Newtonian mechanics cannot not explain some observed phenomena. Was that dogmatic and antithetical to scientific inquiry?

 

[AWPrime]

Newtonian mechanics cannot not explain some observed phenomena.

Which would that be?

 

[RandFan]

I gave an example. Newtonian mechanics cannot not explain some observed phenomena. Was that dogmatic and antithetical to scientific inquiry?

The two are not analogous. To the extent that Newtonian mechanics can't explain something is not akin to materialism not possibly being able to explain some known phenomenon without reason. I will ask again, what is your basis?

 

[chriswl]

Now, obviously if an immaterial thing has the power to influence a material thing, then either it can do this without violating the currently known laws of physics, or it does this in violation of the currently known laws of physics, and these need to be expanded upon.

Wrong. As I suspected you just don't understand.

The first possibility (no violation of the laws of physics) is epiphenomenalism. As no laws of physics are violated then the result is exactly as it would be if there was no mind present. But this is not your position - you think the presence of mind has tangible effects.

The second possibility is your position. Mind must be capable of violating the laws of physics. But if the mind's actions are consistent with a new expanded set of physical laws then mind is again redundant to a physical universe that is described by these new laws. A purely physical brain acting under these laws can do everything that a mind + brain could have done. Materialism still suffices to describe all human behaviour.

For your point about logic to be true we must abandon not just materialism but naturalism. Two philosophers who share your argument about the incompatibility of the material world with notions of truth or logical correctness are Plantinga and Rorty. Plantinga rejects naturalism and Rorty keeps naturalism and rejects the idea of truth. I don't think you have faced up the the implications of your position. You want to have your cake and eat it.

Anyway, as I have said, this isnt really the subject of this thread. I would suggest you start or join another one if you want to discuss theories of consciousness.

I'm just explaining the cul-de-sac that your philosophy leads to. This is why no one here is willing to follow you there.

 

[stillthinkin]

Like I said, start a new thread.

 

[stillthinkin]

The matter worked as it should but the conclusion still didn't match reality, and that is the anwser to the question:

So matter can be wrong about a conclusion? Tell me how a material state can be wrong about anything. Tell me how a material thing does not match reality.

 

[stillthinkin]

Newtonian mechanics cannot not explain some observed phenomena.

Which would that be?

Are you not familiar with the theories of special and general relativity, how they contradict newtonian expectations, and the empirical support for them?

Opps, I just realized I double notted back there.... Typo, meant to say "Newtonian mechanics cannot explain some observed phenomena."