On Materialism

[homunculus]

On Materialism (and Other Stuff)

I suppose I would be a materialist of sorts, but it seems to me that the criteria we impose on scientific theories already exclude those entities and forces to which no consistent, measurable effects can be attributed. This will always be a lazy, ad hoc approach to explanation. If our theory fails to say anything definite about what we should, or should not expect to happen, then we can have no way to test it.

Not only this, but if no concieveable state of affairs would refute our theory, then no actual state of affairs can be adduced as evidence in support of it. So we have no need to deny the existence of gods, spirits, souls, magic etc. (this position of denial is itself logically untenable).

It is enough to lay heavy stress on the importance of our explanations being vulnerable to the possibility of empirical tests, in some publically observeable space. Where experiment cannot help us decide between competing theories (by outruling the wrong ones) we have no rational grounds for relying on any of them.

This is not to say we can dismiss all metaphysical theorizing as "meaningless". On the contrary, it may be the source of important insights. Plus, a change of circumstances (or a different approach) may render a previously untestable theory, testable.

Cheers,

Paul.

P.S. Having said all this, a strong case for a kind of dualism, was put forward by Karl Popper and John Eccles, who argued that unless we accept that mental states are qualitively different from physical ones, science is simply impossible, because a commitment to the search for "truth" depends entirely on the assumption that our theories stand in purely logical relationships to one another (and to the world of our experience). All argument, and all criticism requires this.

Just some "grist for the mill", as they say...

 

[Q-Source]

Good points.

Basically you are right in your interpretation. In order for Science to test those non material manifestations it is necessary to build a new scientific approach that takes into account the flaws of materialism.
I think that the underlying materialistic assumptions are just limiting the possibility of getting more knowledge on different areas that are still unknown to human beings.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

homunculus,

P.S. Having said all this, a strong case for a kind of dualism, was put forward by Karl Popper and John Eccles, who argued that unless we accept that mental states are qualitively different from physical ones, science is simply impossible, because a commitment to the search for "truth" depends entirely on the assumption that our theories stand in purely logical relationships to one another (and to the world of our experience). All argument, and all criticism requires this.

I don't follow this argument at all. What is meant by saying that our theories stand in purely logical relationships to one another? And why does this somehow imply that mental states must be qualitatively different from physical ones? For that matter, what definition of physical and mental were they using when they said this? Were they criticizing some form of metaphysical materialism, or were they referring to the epistemological version of materialism that the rest of your post seems to be talking about?


Q-Source,

Basically you are right in your interpretation. In order for Science to test those non material manifestations it is necessary to build a new scientific approach that takes into account the flaws of materialism.

What non-material manifestations? What flaws of materialism are you referring to?

I think that the underlying materialistic assumptions are just limiting the possibility of getting more knowledge on different areas that are still unknown to human beings.

Which materialistic assumptions do you think are limiting us in this way? Are they really assumptions of modern scientific materialism, or are they assumptions that have been attributed to modern materialism by other people? I do not know of any assumptions of modern materialism that could be removed without invalidating the scientific method. That won't give us access to knowledge we currently don't have access to. It will simply remove our access to any knowledge at all.

How can you claim to know something if it cannot be reliably verified? How do you propose to verify something which is non-material?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Dancing David]

Nice post, point out the philosophical underpining of the materialist viewpoint.

Sorry Q-source, there is no squelching of discussion or endevour, just whacko whining. I feel that if we postulate most 'immaterial experience' to be an artifact of the human condition, it puts it right into the realm of scice. Could you elborate on how materialism has decreased the discussion, I would like to learn, Thanks.

 

[Q-Source]

What non-material manifestations?

Qualia and others

What flaws of materialism are you referring to?

The flaws about the characteristics that matter and its properties *should* have or are expected to have.

Which materialistic assumptions do you think are limiting us in this way?

Specifically the assumptions that state that events only exist if they interact in a materialistic way with something else.

Are they really assumptions of modern scientific materialism, or are they assumptions that have been attributed to modern materialism by other people?

And this is the heart of the problem. They are assumptions of scientific materialism, not of Science.

I do not know of any assumptions of modern materialism that could be removed without invalidating the scientific method.

That's why I said that Science needs a new approach. Do you think that investigation in QM lacks a scientific method if it doesn't follow the assumptions of materialism?

That won't give us access to knowledge we currently don't have access to. It will simply remove our access to any knowledge at all.

You are assuming that there is no way to gain knowledge if we alter our scientific method.

How can you claim to know something if it cannot be reliably verified? How do you propose to verify something which is non-material?

The fact that no-one else can rely on my description of fear, love, taste, etc. -which are immaterial feelings- does not mean that they do not exist. The scientific method helps to provide an approximation of what it might be but it doesn't say what it is.

Q-S

 

[MRC_Hans]

I shure wish somebody would explain to me what qualia is. Not that it hasnt been tried, but I simply fail to catch on to why they somehow deserve a special category.

On materialism (I generally hate "isms", but...): Even granted that some things might exist which do not interact with the material world, how would we be able to know about them?

Hans

 

[homunculus]

On materialism (I generally hate "isms", but...): Even granted that some things might exist which do not interact with the material world, how would we be able to know about them?

Exactly!

What qualifies as "material" anyway? Is gravity "material"? It has to do with the curvature of "spacetime" by mass...none of which can be directly observed, only inferred by experiment.

Which is why I added "consistent, measureable effect" as the only criteria useful to science.

Ran out of time...more later...

Paul.

 

[Q-Source]

Even granted that some things might exist which do not interact with the material world, how would we be able to know about them?

Then how do you know then that they might exist?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

What non-material manifestations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualia and others

Please explain what you mean by the word "qualia", and why you think that it is both non-material, and something which exists.

What flaws of materialism are you referring to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The flaws about the characteristics that matter and its properties *should* have or are expected to have.

What characteristics do you think that materialism claims matter should have, that you do not think it actually has, and why?

Which materialistic assumptions do you think are limiting us in this way?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically the assumptions that state that events only exist if they interact in a materialistic way with something else.

I am not sure what you mean by "interact in a materialistic way". Materialism requires that things interact in an observable way. How can this be seen as a limitation? If something is not observable, then regardless of whether your framework allows for its existence or not, you can never know that it exists, or even have any logical reason to think that it does.

Are they really assumptions of modern scientific materialism, or are they assumptions that have been attributed to modern materialism by other people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is the heart of the problem. They are assumptions of scientific materialism, not of Science.

Which assumptions do you think scientific materialism makes, that science does not?

Here's a better idea. Why don't you tell us what you think the assumptions of materialism and science are? That way we can settle right away whether you are talking about the same thing that people who actually consider themselves to be materialists are talking about. We can also then see whether you actually have any idea what the assumptions of science are.

I do not know of any assumptions of modern materialism that could be removed without invalidating the scientific method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why I said that Science needs a new approach. Do you think that investigation in QM lacks a scientific method if it doesn't follow the assumptions of materialism?

So what you are saying is that you don't like science, and want to replace it with something else?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That won't give us access to knowledge we currently don't have access to. It will simply remove our access to any knowledge at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are assuming that there is no way to gain knowledge if we alter our scientific method.

No, I am saying that right now the scientific method is the only method we have for gaining knowledge. If you want to propose some different method, feel free. But until you do so, and demonstrate that it actually works better in some way than the method we currently have, I don't see how you can complain that the scientific method we have is somehow "flawed".

How can you claim to know something if it cannot be reliably verified? How do you propose to verify something which is non-material?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that no-one else can rely on my description of fear, love, taste, etc. -which are immaterial feelings- does not mean that they do not exist.

Nor does it mean that the existence of those things cannot be scientifically known, or understood. You are simply assuming that they cannot.

The scientific method helps to provide an approximation of what it might be but it doesn't say what it is.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Science describes what is. That description is by necessity always an approximation. If you want to know the absolute truth, I am afraid you are going to have to settle for self-delusion.


homunculus,

What qualifies as "material" anyway? Is gravity "material"? It has to do with the curvature of "spacetime" by mass...none of which can be directly observed, only inferred by experiment.

Which is why I added "consistent, measureable effect" as the only criteria useful to science.

Ran out of time...more later...

That is exactly what it means in modern materialism. The archaic metaphysical notion of some sort of "material substance" of which everything is composed, was discarded as meaningless a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Idealists and Dualists still base their philosophies on such incoherent concepts as "ontological substances", and many of them insist on claiming that modern materialists do as well.


Dr. Stupid

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then how do you know then that they might exist?

I don't. That is why I don't believe in them.

Hans

 

[TheERK]

I shure wish somebody would explain to me what qualia is. Not that it hasnt been tried, but I simply fail to catch on to why they somehow deserve a special category.

On materialism (I generally hate "isms", but...): Even granted that some things might exist which do not interact with the material world, how would we be able to know about them?

Hans

Qualia, whether they exist are not, are elements of mental experience. I can understand if somebody says it's a flawed theory with no evidence, but I have a hard time believing that you really don't understand what's being discussed here. Instead, since mental experience is such a tricky issue (to some of us), perhaps you're pretending to not know what qualia allegedly are so that you can ask people for a definition--something that you already know nobody can really do well. This (if I'm right) is an unfair tactic; atleast admit that you know what qualists (?) are talking about, and then argue why they are mistaken.

As for your second paragraph, who ever said these things do not interact with the physical world? Oh, I remember: epiphenomenalists. I doubt we have any of those here. To argue that mental events exist, but don't interact with physical events, is ridiculous, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Eric

 

[MRC_Hans]

Eric:

No, I'm not trolling. As I hinted, I have already had qualia explained, but I fail to understand. What I fail to understand is that qualia are anything but some abstraction level of observations. I fail to see how they are distinct from objective information, except for degree of measurability.

Therefore I fail to understand how they become an argument for any supernatural (or non-materialistic, if you will) realm.

And:

As for your second paragraph, who ever said these things do not interact with the physical world?

Q-source did:

Specifically the assumptions that state that events only exist if they interact in a materialistic way with something else.

Hans

 

[Q-Source]

Please explain what you mean by the word "qualia", and why you think that it is both non-material, and something which exists.

You know what I mean by qualia. Feelings, taste, experiences, etc. They exist because I have them, the problem is that the explanation that Science provides does not satisfy me.

What characteristics do you think that materialism claims matter should have, that you do not think it actually has, and why?

Matter has the characteristics that materialism claims, but qualia is not matter and still exists.

Which assumptions do you think scientific materialism makes, that science does not?

QM theory is Science and does not make use of materialistic assumptions like having a identifiable position in space .



Nor does it mean that the existence of those things cannot be scientifically known, or understood. You are simply assuming that they cannot.


Q-S

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

Please explain what you mean by the word "qualia", and why you think that it is both non-material, and something which exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what I mean by qualia. Feelings, taste, experiences, etc. They exist because I have them,

OK. So why do you think they are non-physical? How could those things even conceivably be non-physical, when they so clearly are not only dependant on physical influences, but also have direct observable physical effects? If something interacts with other physical things, in what sense can you meaningfully say it is non-physical? What criteria would you impose as being necessary and sufficient for something to be physical, and why?

the problem is that the explanation that Science provides does not satisfy me.

Boo hoo. If you don't like it, find a better one. Just don't expect anybody else to care, unless your new and improved consciousness theory is actually verifiable.

What characteristics do you think that materialism claims matter should have, that you do not think it actually has, and why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matter has the characteristics that materialism claims, but qualia is not matter and still exists.

First of all, qualia are not matter. They are physical processes. What specific characteristics which you think materialism claims that physical processes must have, are you claiming that qualia do not have?

Which assumptions do you think scientific materialism makes, that science does not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QM theory is Science and does not make use of materialistic assumptions like having a identifiable position in space .

Modern scientific materialism makes no such assumption. You are thinking of classical materialism, which nobody who knows anything about the last century of science believes in anymore.

Nor does it mean that the existence of those things cannot be scientifically known, or understood. You are simply assuming that they cannot.

What are you talking about? Anything which can be observed, directly or indirectly, exists. If it can not be observed, then clearly it cannot be scientifically known or understood.

Where on earth did you get the idea that materialists deny the existence of things which can be observed? That's just crazy talk.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Q-Source]

Boo hoo. If you don't like it, find a better one. Just don't expect anybody else to care, unless your new and improved consciousness theory is actually verifiable.

I don't expect anyone to care, I am not asking YOU to care and I am not proposing any other alternative. I DO care because I haven't found a full description in Science about how a very simple physical process takes place. Not a single one.

If you are satisfied with the incomplete (and sometimes INEXISTENT) description that Science provides then good for you.

That's just crazy talk.

Thank you for your time, Stimpson. Please don't bother anymore.

Q-S

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

If you are satisfied with the incomplete (and sometimes INEXISTENT) description that Science provides then good for you.

Who ever said I was satisfied? What difference does it make whether I am satisfied with the answers science can give me or not? Science is all we've got. It doesn't matter whether we are satisfied with it or not.

I'm not satisfied with the fact that I am only going to live (at most) another 60 years or so, either. That doesn't mean that I can just wish myself a longer life.

That's just crazy talk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your time, Stimpson. Please don't bother anymore.

While I realize that you are just using the above statement to avoid answering my questions, without looking like you are avoiding them, I feel that I should point out that I was not calling you crazy, nor was I saying that what you said was crazy. I was simply saying that to say that something which can be observed doesn't exist, is crazy talk. In other words, materialists would have to be crazy to hold the position which you seem to be attributing to them.

Fortunately, they do not.


Dr. Stupid

 

[jj]

I don't expect anyone to care, I am not asking YOU to care and I am not proposing any other alternative. I DO care because I haven't found a full description in Science about how a very simple physical process takes place. Not a single one.

If you are satisfied with the incomplete (and sometimes INEXISTENT) description that Science provides then good for you.

Thank you for your time, Stimpson. Please don't bother anymore.

Q-S

Why not answer the question instead of declaring victory by strongarm-not-answering.

By the way, would you mind being honest about the context of the quote you keep using in your signature line? It would be good of you to point out to you that proximate to that comment was the obvious statement something like "QM is simply a description of how matter works".

You really are looking like you've got some serious ethical issues here.

 

[Suggestologist]

Q-Source,
Modern scientific materialism makes no such assumption. You are thinking of classical materialism, which nobody who knows anything about the last century of science believes in anymore.

Are you saying that "science" has changed its basic assumptions over time?

How possible is it that its basic assumptions will change again?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Suggestologist,

Modern scientific materialism makes no such assumption. You are thinking of classical materialism, which nobody who knows anything about the last century of science believes in anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that "science" has changed its basic assumptions over time?

No. I am saying that materialism has changed its basic assumptions over time, based on new knowledge gained by science.

When science determined that our intuitive notions about physical reality were wrong, we rejected those intuitive notions, not science. Since then, materialism has gone from being a metaphysical view of the world, based on our intuitive preconceptions of it, to an epistemological view of the world, based on the axioms and findings of science.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Mercutio]

You know what I mean by qualia. Feelings, taste, experiences, etc. They exist because I have them, the problem is that the explanation that Science provides does not satisfy me.

Feeling is an action. Tasting is an action. Experiencing is an action. (I ordinarily say "a behavior", which is technically better, but after so many times through this I felt like a change.) Walking is an action. It, like feeling, tasting, and experiencing, is something I do (or my body does--works the same, take your pick). I have a particular walk (some would say "gait" or "manner of walking", but "walk" will also suffice). You, if you knew me, would recognise me by my walk long before you saw my features, if I walked toward you from some distance away. My walk (noun) has the same type of existence as do my feelings(noun), tastes, or experiences, which is to say a linguistic existence. These are nouns we use as stand-ins for actions. Sometimes it is a useful abstraction; a physical therapist might refer to my walk when talking to another pt, perhaps even as a particular type of walk. But my walk does not exist in any real form apart from my walking (verb--ok, gerund in this case). The noun usage is an artifice. You see a face; you do not see a sight of a face. (Yes, I know that our language allows us to say we catch sight of something--my point is exactly that it *is* our language rather than our experiencing that opens this can of worms.) You taste sugar; you do not taste the taste of sugar. You experience love; you do not experience the experience of love.

Qualia are a wonderful thing to study. For linguists, perhaps. For me, I'll study seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling...fearing, loving, and all the other actions we do ("things" we do is just another example of our language making nouns out of actions).