1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Objections materialism must overcome

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by 1137, Mar 29, 2019.

  1. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    ##Property Dualism

    The most glaring and straightforward issue with Material Reductionism as a solution to the Mind-Body Problem is what is known as “Property Dualism.” The argument goes like this:

    1. The mind/consciousness and the brain/matter have different properties (Property Dualism). 127

    2. Things with non-identical properties cannot be the same thing (The Law of Identity). 128

    3. Therefore, the mind/consciousness and the brain/matter cannot be the same thing.

    The second premise, the Law of Identity, is simply the most basic axiom of logic. Without it, if we reject it, there can be no logical coherence of any kind in any situation or on any topic. Best we do not reject it, even if only for Pragmatic reasons!

    The first premise can Minds/Consciousness are immaterial things capable of acting freely, which do not take up space, have subjective experience, and are entirely private to the individual.

    Matter and brains are the exact opposite. You can hold brains and matter, they take up space, others outside of yourself can observe the same brain/matter, they are objectively existent, do not experience free of consciousness, and so forth. So it is logically sound (both valid and objectively true) to say that the mind and matter cannot be the same thing.

    Imagine a beautiful woman or man in front of you. You know that your brain is taking up space in your head, but the projected image does not take up any space. Nobody can see your beautiful person but you, and what is beautiful to you may not be for others. Unlike how we can gather around a brain we cannot interact with your projection in any way. This is because the brain and the mind have different properties, making them different things.

    ##Axiomatic Self

    A second basic argument against Material Reductionism is that:

    1. Our own mind is the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists, and is the only thing we can ever know directly.

    2. Matter is only known through the mind. 130 129

    3. We cannot reduce something we know directly to something we know through it, and we cannot reduce something we know with certainty for something we are uncertain of.

    4. Therefore, we cannot reduce the mind and consciousness to matter and the brain.

    Again, all of these premises are easy to show and you can test them yourself as you read this. The solution to #1 is actually extremely simple. Without a mind or consciousness the very concept of “knowing” or “being aware of something” makes no sense. If you were not a conscious mind you could not know or learn anything. Matter is one of these things you could not know or learn about. Even your own body is only known through your mind. We can scientifically prove this by applying anesthetic to an individual to shut down their consciousness, then performing painful surgeries on them which they do not experience or remember. #3 is a logical statement, for knowledge is hierarchal. For instance we know “I exists” is true, but “the Sun will ‘rise’ tomorrow” is technically only a 99.99% likelihood. It’s possible that the Sun does not rise, but not that “I exist” is a false statement. We are even less certain about something like “there is life elsewhere in the universe” than that the Sun will rise. What we know through the mind is less certain than the fact that the mind itself exists. This makes it unreasonable to suggest we can believe in matter without a belief in mind.

    ##Existence of other immaterial things

    Yet another problem for Material Reductionism is not only that consciousness/the mind are immaterial, but that other immaterial things exist as well. This includes, among others, the existence of Mathematics and Logic. Math and Logic are objective and necessary aspects of the cosmos. So far as we can tell, even without minds there would still be the same number of electrons in a hydrogen atom, and the Sun could still not be identical to the Earth because they have different properties. The Laws of Logic and Mathematics are discovered rather than created, similar to how we discover the laws of physics, behavior, or biology. Yet these laws are also immaterial, in that we cannot access them in any physical way. To reject the objective existence of these immaterial things would be to say that logic, math, and other things are not actually real – illogical things could be true, 2+2 could equal 55.

    ##One piece of evidence for Materialism refuted

    the only evidence for Material Reductionism is: “doing things to the brain also does things to the mind.” This is certainly true. For example if you take a psychedelic drug you will have a trip, if you are given anesthetic then you will be unconscious. There is no doubt about this, but the issue is this is also expected within Dualism and Idealism. In Dualism the brain is a receiver like a TV or radio, and consciousness is processed through it. Surely when your TV or radio stops working you do not believe the stations cease to exist 131! If the brain is a receiver then we would expect consciousness to come through strangely when that receiver is damaged. In Idealism consciousness is foundational, and so the brain actually exists within consciousness. If this is the case then of course the two are tightly related, one relies on the other! It must be noted that even if Dualism or Idealism are false, this evidence is still not suggestive of Material Reductionism itself.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I am not a materialist but . . .
    I will deal with the above this first. The present objective evidence has determined that mind/consciousness originate from the brain, and there is no evidence that they are different properties, nor another source for the mind/consciousness. Therefore first statement is without foundation and the rest falls.
     
  3. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,119
    Ratings:
    +3,791
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    But it is irrational to base an assessment of a subjective metaphysical (transcendent) phenomena like conscious cognition by the criteria used to assess that from which it has transcended. It's like holding a ruler in the air to assess the "reality" of a beautiful sunset.
     
  4. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,073
    Ratings:
    +1,661
    Religion:
    Something else
    Hi.

    What about non-reductive materialism? A materialist could overcome this argument by proposing emergent properties or even property dualism itself.

    Can you explain premise 3 a little. I don't follow.
     
  5. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    Except this is obviously false from the OP lol. If "the present objective evidence" explains the issues of the Hard Problem away then explain how, don't just claim it. What the evidence shows is clearly property Dualism, unless you've evidence otherwise.

    The mind is still just caused by the brain here, right?

    Existence of immaterial things?
     
  6. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    There is no objective verifiable evidence for property dualism. Methodological Naturalism cannot prove the negative.

    By the present state of the evidence the mind and consciousness is caused by the brain.
     
  7. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    Except the objections literally showed you why this isn't true. But I'm sure screaming it over and over again will be good enough for some. But unless you can show how mind is the same as matter - spacial, universal, objective, accessible to the senses, etc - I'm not going to buy into your blind faith when I can empirically confirm these property differences.

    So present a shred of evidence or a shred of refutation :D
     
  8. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,295
    Ratings:
    +889
    So... If there's only one thing, no dualism. My contention is that there is only spirit.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    You have not shown me any objectively verifiable evidence that this would is true. All you have proved is anecdotal and subjective claims base don an agenda.

    The problem is you have not shown one shred of evidence that a falsified hypothesis could demonstrate that the mind/consciousness is not a product of the brain,:D

    Screaming gets you nowhere fast.
     
  10. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    I have - their properties are different. You take up no more space in a room if you're sleeping than if your thinking intently or being creative. Your mind cannot be accessed how matter can be, and it isis entire private. These are the issues we're discussing. I understand you cannot refute them, but let's not pretend the evidence isn't blatantly there lol.


    So show why the objection does not work as evidence. You can just as easily falsify all these objections, like by showing a mind that takes up space and is accessible to others. But you can't, and we ALL know you can't, and this is why materialism is blind faith.

    And yet your "refutation" is screaming "nuh uh cause I say so!"
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    This only represents anecdotal subjective evidence and not objective verifiable evidence as a hypothesis that would demonstrate that the mind/consciousness does not originate from the brain. lol


    Evidence must be objective verifiable evidence. What you claim does not meet the criteria for science.

    From: Consciousness - Wikipedia

    Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness or of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something "that it is like" to "have" or "be" it, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[4] As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."[5]

    Western philosophers, since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and identify its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally coherent; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious, a topic studied in the field of artificial intelligence.

    Thanks to developments in technology over the past few decades, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, with significant contributions from fields such as psychology, anthropology,[6][7] neuropsychology and neuroscience. The primary focus is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness. The majority of experimental studies assess consciousness in humans by asking subjects for a verbal report of their experiences (e.g., "tell me if you notice anything when I do this"). Issues of interest include phenomena such as subliminal perception, blindsight, denial of impairment, and altered states of consciousness produced by alcohol and other drugs, or spiritual or meditative techniques.

    In medicine, consciousness is assessed by observing a patient's arousal and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from full alertness and comprehension, through disorientation, delirium, loss of meaningful communication, and finally loss of movement in response to painful stimuli.[8] Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill, comatose, or anesthetized people, and how to treat conditions in which consciousness is impaired or disrupted.[9]The degree of consciousness is measured by standardized behavior observation scales such as the Glasgow Coma Scale.

    There are over 100 articles in this reference concerning the problem of mind/consciousness relationship with the brain.

    Google Scholar

    Where is your scientific references of falsifiable evidence?
     
    #11 shunyadragon, Mar 30, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2019
  12. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    Wow, you have no idea what objective is do you lol. Test it for yourself instead of telling on anectdote!

    Except it does. You can confirm/falsify it using the scientific method.

    I love how your support of your position is sharing articles which show the hard problem actually exists haha. But I would bet money you're still pretending it doesn't!

    Still right there, unrefuted in your side quest to not admit you haven't a single refutation. Good luck next time ;)
     
  13. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Than there should be no problem with you citing peer reviewed scientific references to support your assertions.
     
  14. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,011
    Ratings:
    +8,113
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    This is a complete load of pseudoscience.

    It's like stating 'seeing' has different properties than the eye therefore 'seeing' not the same thing. It's rubbish.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    I'm unsure why you'd want testimony for something you can test yourself bud. Just go test and admit you're wrong haha.

    Fallacy. Seeing doesn't have immaterial properties. It literally requires something material looking at something material. This is the difference between emergence and ontological distinction. For example

    Legs and running are examples of emergence. Obviously they have some properties different, but not the ones which define matter. Both lens and running take up space, can be accessed by the senses, can be interacted with by others, etc. The issue with the mind is the properties are contradictory to this. But sure, screaming "rubbish" might as well be convincing philosophy in this world.
     
  16. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,011
    Ratings:
    +8,113
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    You're treating seeing (or running) as if it's something like an object. The attempt to equate a verb with a noun is essentially making up something that isn't there. It's essentially wordplay in hopes of tripping up people by confusing nouns with verbs.
     
  17. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,572
    Ratings:
    +4,602
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Than there should be no problem with you citing peer reviewed scientific references to support your assertions.
     
  18. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    Right, so you're going to pretend now we can't see someone running? Ok.

    There's not, see the work of Chalmers and such for instance. But you can TEST THIS YOURSELF. Surely you accept drivel can pass peer review and genius can fail, biases in academics, etc. And surely you know that if you can test this yourself but require a big name it's appeal to authority/popularity/celebrity depending on how you do it right?

    It's okay though man, we go way back. The entire reason you won't research this yourself or test it yourself is it will prove you wrong, and you could never be open to that in a million years .I think over wasted enough time on you over the years :)
     
  19. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,011
    Ratings:
    +8,113
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Oh I can see a person running. For sure.

    Person/action = noun/verb

    Running without the person? Uh no.

    Action/action = verb/verb
     
  20. 1137

    1137 | O.S. Co-founder
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    12,085
    Ratings:
    +1,924
    Religion:
    Order of the Serpent
    Well obviously. If running is emergent it needs something to emerge from
     
Loading...