• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism Proven

ReFLeX

Graduate Poster
R
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
1,141
Then what?

Suppose hypothetically that materialism was proved tomorrow. There is a lot of argument about it on the forums, but what I am wondering is, what would change if we knew that it was true? Other than one's understanding of the world... I don't think religious people would have any trouble rejecting such a proof as a Devil Trick. So is there an extrinsic motive to argue for materialism? Or is it really as pointless as it seems to me?
 
ReFLeX said:
Then what?

Suppose hypothetically that materialism was proved tomorrow. There is a lot of argument about it on the forums, but what I am wondering is, what would change if we knew that it was true? Other than one's understanding of the world... I don't think religious people would have any trouble rejecting such a proof as a Devil Trick. So is there an extrinsic motive to argue for materialism? Or is it really as pointless as it seems to me?
Click to expand...

It is sort of like a proof of Fermat's last equation. A limited range of people will be happy/sad/in denial and the rest of us will go on as before. We all act as though (whinings from certain unnamed people not withstanding) we live in a world where materialism is the rule.
 
ReFLeX said:
Then what?

Suppose hypothetically that materialism was proved tomorrow. There is a lot of argument about it on the forums, but what I am wondering is, what would change if we knew that it was true? Other than one's understanding of the world... I don't think religious people would have any trouble rejecting such a proof as a Devil Trick. So is there an extrinsic motive to argue for materialism? Or is it really as pointless as it seems to me?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is pointless. I think the world would be off knowing the truth about reality because we could live our lives accordingly. This holds true no matter what the nature of the world is....materialism....monotheism....etc.

Also, I feel like the persuit of truth is its own reward.
 
ReFLeX said:
Then what?

Suppose hypothetically that materialism was proved tomorrow. There is a lot of argument about it on the forums, but what I am wondering is, what would change if we knew that it was true? Other than one's understanding of the world... I don't think religious people would have any trouble rejecting such a proof as a Devil Trick. So is there an extrinsic motive to argue for materialism? Or is it really as pointless as it seems to me?
Click to expand...

Not much would happen untill a good few generations I reckon. I think the old saying, new ideas emerge at funerals, is apt here. And that goes for if materialism was proven to be false and was replaced by an idealist framework.
 
You mean like a proof that "there is nothing but the material"?

Such a proof, I imagine would depend largely on observation, which anyone will tell you is incapable of detecting the non-material.

So it probably would be unconvincing to Interesting Ian, and vacuous to everyone else.
 
At last, drawn by the relentless and irresistable force of logic, and the passionate love of evidence and truth! I knew they would come around eventually! Hooray! (insert "tongue in cheek" smiley here)
 
Re: Re: Materialism Proven

Ed said:
It is sort of like a proof of Fermat's last equation. A limited range of people will be happy/sad/in denial and the rest of us will go on as before. We all act as though (whinings from certain unnamed people not withstanding) we live in a world where materialism is the rule.
Click to expand...
Now say what it actually is, or Dr Adequate will be vey very mean to you. This is your first public warning.

I see that hammy wants to join in with the grown-ups again, and his idea of a contribution is to define an undefined term by means of another undefined term. The phrase "one trick pony" comes to mind.
 
Ok. Materialism as I understand it: objective reality where things have actual static properties regardless of whether they are perceived.

Such a proof, I imagine would depend largely on observation, which anyone will tell you is incapable of detecting the non-material.
Click to expand...

Right... which is why it's a hypothetical proof, one has to suppose it was enough to convince... well. Hmm. Maybe a better way to pose this is: Materialism is wholly accepted by everyone. Or idealism, whichever. Then... what? Is it worth pursuing, this truth? Or don't other, less metaphysical pursuits of knowledge, have greater rewards in the effects they would bring about? I'm all for philosophical inquiry, I just wanted to know what people thought the benefits of the debate are.

... You were all newbies once!!

I'll learn... but I won't ever give up my ellipses...
 
ReFLeX said:
Ok. Materialism as I understand it: objective reality where things have actual static properties regardless of whether they are perceived.
Click to expand...
Mmm... I wouldn't have said that this was "materialism", just non-solipsism. We hypothesise a world which is the cause of our experience. Now I should say that this is an empirical hypothesis like any other: we suppose it to be so, and it works.

But I think that most people who use the word "materialism" use it to mean something else, although it can be extraordinarily difficult to find out what. (You're new round here. You won't remember Interesting Ian. You're lucky.)
 
Hmm I probably should have done this right off:
Dictionary.com

<u>Philosophy</u>. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Well that is basically what I myself subscribe to, anyway. Does determinism not necessarily follow from this?
But even this definition, suppose I were to know it was true, does not seem to change how I would act.

You're new round here. You won't remember Interesting Ian. You're lucky.
Click to expand...

Remember? What happened? Did he disappear in a puff of logic? Nope, I got around a little bit before joining, enough to see TLN's post about him and a weird thread of his about ghosts or something. But I didn't know he was Gone.
 
II's definition does not cover "Dark Matter" which cannot be seen or touched, and neither can it be detected by any machine. It has to exist to explain the mechanics of the universe, but is it material?
 
Prove materialism?

Is that anything like proving isolationism?

Whatever. It's a semi-interesting philosophical exercise to try to undertake, but in my opinion amounts to nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

No offense, Reflex, but questions like this demonstrate why philosophical proofs are different things than logical proofs. You can never prove materialism. It's just an abstract concept, like trying to prove "the power of love" or "God." Because of its very nature it can't be proven or disproven.

But if I understand what you are saying I guess you are wondering what life would be like if we could prove that external reality is real and reality did not change based on our perceptions.

Well for one thing, I could start slapping my friend who always say "Well, yeah, God is real because He's real to ME," instead of trying to convince him that there is only one reality and end up drinking heavily to calm myself down.
 
Explorer said:
II's definition does not cover "Dark Matter" which cannot be seen or touched, and neither can it be detected by any machine. It has to exist to explain the mechanics of the universe, but is it material?
Click to expand...

Here's my definition of "physical".

If materialism is the thesis that everything that exists is physical, then what does “physical” mean? Traditionally it has been maintained that it is the fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world. So for example, it is everything we perceive through our five senses, such as tables, chairs and trees. But it is also those things we can only see by virtue of the use of instruments such as microscopes and so on which simply extend the range of things we are able to sense. Finally it also includes those things whose existence we cannot directly see at all, with or without the use of instruments, but whose existence we nevertheless feel we can confidently infer. An obvious example here are electrons. Nobody can directly see electrons, and arguably we could never see them in principle, but we can set up experiments and achieve results that are explicable if we imagine very small entities with certain properties. These entities we label electrons.
Click to expand...

Dark matter is physical because we need it to explain the dynamics of the cosmos, just like we need electrons to explain certain experimental results.
 
ReFLeX said:
Hmm I probably should have done this right off:
Dictionary.com

<u>Philosophy</u>. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Well that is basically what I myself subscribe to, anyway. Does determinism not necessarily follow from this?
Click to expand...

No, materialism is compatible with the world being completely random.
 
I am fully aware that it can't be proven, that's why I rephrased somewhere up there. No, I was posing it as more of a rhetorical question, because what I saw of the debates about it supported your "intellectual masturbation" metaphor, and I wanted to know why it is not as futile as it seems to me, since there is no "orgasm"...

Isolationism being solipsism?!

Apparently Dr. Adequate just wishes you were gone, Ian...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom