I’ve been questioning, doubting, and eventually rejecting materialism over the course of the last few years, a change which has moved me from an atheistic materialist to, well, whatever I am now! I’d like to sum up the biggest rejections I have seen for materialism, hopefully showing that it is a position far less founded than it seems at face value. I will also show why materialism makes far more assumptions than it lets us. I will try to keep it brief, but it’s a rather in-depth topic! Also please note I am not putting forth a position other than “materialism should be rejected”. I certainly do not have all the answers or explanations at this time.
The Axiomatic Problem
1. The mind is directly known.
2. All things that are not the mind are only known through the mind.
3. Therefore, the mind is the only thing that can be known directly.
This is called the axiomatic problem for a reason: it shows that the existence of the mind is axiomatic. The mind is all our thoughts, conscious and subconscious, who we are, how we understand ourselves and our place in this world, and so on. It is impossible to reject the existence of this “self” because there would be nobody to do the denying! This is a big problem for materialism, because matter is only known through the mind itself. All our knowledge, observations, studies, they all get processed through each individual mind. Materialism has to reduce mind to matter in one way or another, and with matter only being known through the mind it encounters a serious issue, as we are rejecting the known for something known through it. This is paradoxical. Materialism would need to find a way to eliminate the mind – something axiomatic – which is of course seemingly impossible as axioms cannot be rejected.
Property Dualism Problem
1. Something like “neurons firing” is categorically different from something like “experiencing X”.
2. Brains are physical and can be empirically studied, whereas you cannot see a mind or test another’s mind directly.
3. Therefore the mind and brain have different properties.
This is a huge problem, because materialism relies on the mind and brain being identical. Yet two things with different properties cannot be identical, it is paradoxical. Some of those properties are themselves contradictory, such as the fact that the brain is material and the mind immaterial. I’m already feeling the backlash from that last sentence. This is rather simple though, as something immaterial is simply not made of matter itself, not physically tangible. People can hold brains, study the firing of neurons, and so forth because it is made of matter, and our devices are made to measure material things. But the mind of any individual can never, under any circumstances, be directly known. Perhaps the most famous explanation is Nagel’s Bat, in which he explains that even if we know exactly how a bat’s brain works we will never truly know what the experience of a bat is like. As said, if two things have different properties they cannot be identical, and therefore not reducible. This is as simple of as the laws of logic, A is not Non-A.
The Causal Problem
1. The brain can cause mental changes.
2. The mind can cause physiological changes.
3. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that one is the sole cause of the other.
This brings us to one of the assumptions I was talking about. Cognitive therapies or tricks – including self-talk, visualization, placebos, general reconditioning, and so on – all show that the mind can have an impact on the brain. In order to explain these things away as “simply the brain”, materialism has to assume reductionism in the first place, otherwise explain the mechanism by which this happens (which we will get to). In fact, studies show that something like simply seeing stress as detrimental causes it to be more detrimental. This is a clear example of how the mind can precede changes in the physical body. We cannot simply assume that only the mind impacts the body or only the body impacts the mind, because all evidence shows that they impact each other.
The Empirical Problem
1. Empiricism itself relies on logic.
2. An empirical position should therefore attempt to have the fewest logical problems.
3. Reductionism cannot answer any of the above logical problems.
4. Therefore, reductionism is flawed as an empirical position.
This could easily be applied to all modern “empiricism” which obsesses with strictly physical evidence, but this is long enough without doing so! Simply stated, there is more than just physical, empirical evidence, and indeed such evidence is only useful if used in a logical way. The above problems are supported by empirical evidence though, and to move on from them to reductionism is seriously flawed. It’s often assumed than any non-materialistic position rejects or contradicts empiricism, but this is simply not true as shown above. Rather than making assumptions and leaps in logic to materialism, we have to recognize that it cannot address what is empirically flawed about it such as in the above arguments.
The next two are much more simple and not really arguments, simply clarification.
The Mechanism Problem
As I said, straight forward. No position to date can present a mechanism by which consciousness arises from the brain, the brain from a universal consciousness, and how the two interact in a dualistic fashion. There is simply no known mechanism, at all. But for materialism this is a much larger problem than for others because the mechanism has to somehow create something that, as shown, is logically flawed if not contradictory. How does the immaterial rise from the material, how can things be identical with different properties, questions of that nature.
The Correlation and Brain Damage Problem.
Also straight forwards. Many materialists claim that a correlation between conscious states and brain activity shows that the brain creates consciousness. First off, as shown above, we can’t exactly directly study the mind. A bigger issues is simply that correlation does not equate to causation, something I wrongly assume to be common knowledge. Again, there is not even a suggested mechanism to how this arises, but the position itself is riddled with logical flaws already. As for brain damage, this is again simply explain by the “radio analogy”. If your radio breaks and you cannot hear music through it, does this imply all the radio stations have ceased to exist?
The Folk-Psychology Problem
There is an idea that perhaps mental terminology, such as "feeling or thinking", are simply incorrect - haphazard words chosen by people who did not know better. Yet when we have someone do visualization for stress reduction, do we have them mental go to a different place (a happy place for instance), or do we ask them to change how the neurons in their brains are firing? You're not going to tell a patient to retain more melatonin, you're going to teach them relaxation techniques using the psychological terms. If it was the brain solely impacting the mind, then this should not work, but is in fact the more pragmatic and effective way to go about it.
Anyways, those are the biggest issues we have come upon. Personally I am a believer in gods and their ability to interact, and it seems to me that this could be the answer to the mechanism by which consciousness arises from matter as a dualistic, independent thing. This is called faith though, and here is not the proper place to defend it. So perhaps some sort of emergent substance dualism, as I said from the start I am here to question one position, not defend any of the numerous others. Thanks for reading.
The Axiomatic Problem
1. The mind is directly known.
2. All things that are not the mind are only known through the mind.
3. Therefore, the mind is the only thing that can be known directly.
This is called the axiomatic problem for a reason: it shows that the existence of the mind is axiomatic. The mind is all our thoughts, conscious and subconscious, who we are, how we understand ourselves and our place in this world, and so on. It is impossible to reject the existence of this “self” because there would be nobody to do the denying! This is a big problem for materialism, because matter is only known through the mind itself. All our knowledge, observations, studies, they all get processed through each individual mind. Materialism has to reduce mind to matter in one way or another, and with matter only being known through the mind it encounters a serious issue, as we are rejecting the known for something known through it. This is paradoxical. Materialism would need to find a way to eliminate the mind – something axiomatic – which is of course seemingly impossible as axioms cannot be rejected.
Property Dualism Problem
1. Something like “neurons firing” is categorically different from something like “experiencing X”.
2. Brains are physical and can be empirically studied, whereas you cannot see a mind or test another’s mind directly.
3. Therefore the mind and brain have different properties.
This is a huge problem, because materialism relies on the mind and brain being identical. Yet two things with different properties cannot be identical, it is paradoxical. Some of those properties are themselves contradictory, such as the fact that the brain is material and the mind immaterial. I’m already feeling the backlash from that last sentence. This is rather simple though, as something immaterial is simply not made of matter itself, not physically tangible. People can hold brains, study the firing of neurons, and so forth because it is made of matter, and our devices are made to measure material things. But the mind of any individual can never, under any circumstances, be directly known. Perhaps the most famous explanation is Nagel’s Bat, in which he explains that even if we know exactly how a bat’s brain works we will never truly know what the experience of a bat is like. As said, if two things have different properties they cannot be identical, and therefore not reducible. This is as simple of as the laws of logic, A is not Non-A.
The Causal Problem
1. The brain can cause mental changes.
2. The mind can cause physiological changes.
3. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that one is the sole cause of the other.
This brings us to one of the assumptions I was talking about. Cognitive therapies or tricks – including self-talk, visualization, placebos, general reconditioning, and so on – all show that the mind can have an impact on the brain. In order to explain these things away as “simply the brain”, materialism has to assume reductionism in the first place, otherwise explain the mechanism by which this happens (which we will get to). In fact, studies show that something like simply seeing stress as detrimental causes it to be more detrimental. This is a clear example of how the mind can precede changes in the physical body. We cannot simply assume that only the mind impacts the body or only the body impacts the mind, because all evidence shows that they impact each other.
The Empirical Problem
1. Empiricism itself relies on logic.
2. An empirical position should therefore attempt to have the fewest logical problems.
3. Reductionism cannot answer any of the above logical problems.
4. Therefore, reductionism is flawed as an empirical position.
This could easily be applied to all modern “empiricism” which obsesses with strictly physical evidence, but this is long enough without doing so! Simply stated, there is more than just physical, empirical evidence, and indeed such evidence is only useful if used in a logical way. The above problems are supported by empirical evidence though, and to move on from them to reductionism is seriously flawed. It’s often assumed than any non-materialistic position rejects or contradicts empiricism, but this is simply not true as shown above. Rather than making assumptions and leaps in logic to materialism, we have to recognize that it cannot address what is empirically flawed about it such as in the above arguments.
The next two are much more simple and not really arguments, simply clarification.
The Mechanism Problem
As I said, straight forward. No position to date can present a mechanism by which consciousness arises from the brain, the brain from a universal consciousness, and how the two interact in a dualistic fashion. There is simply no known mechanism, at all. But for materialism this is a much larger problem than for others because the mechanism has to somehow create something that, as shown, is logically flawed if not contradictory. How does the immaterial rise from the material, how can things be identical with different properties, questions of that nature.
The Correlation and Brain Damage Problem.
Also straight forwards. Many materialists claim that a correlation between conscious states and brain activity shows that the brain creates consciousness. First off, as shown above, we can’t exactly directly study the mind. A bigger issues is simply that correlation does not equate to causation, something I wrongly assume to be common knowledge. Again, there is not even a suggested mechanism to how this arises, but the position itself is riddled with logical flaws already. As for brain damage, this is again simply explain by the “radio analogy”. If your radio breaks and you cannot hear music through it, does this imply all the radio stations have ceased to exist?
The Folk-Psychology Problem
There is an idea that perhaps mental terminology, such as "feeling or thinking", are simply incorrect - haphazard words chosen by people who did not know better. Yet when we have someone do visualization for stress reduction, do we have them mental go to a different place (a happy place for instance), or do we ask them to change how the neurons in their brains are firing? You're not going to tell a patient to retain more melatonin, you're going to teach them relaxation techniques using the psychological terms. If it was the brain solely impacting the mind, then this should not work, but is in fact the more pragmatic and effective way to go about it.
Anyways, those are the biggest issues we have come upon. Personally I am a believer in gods and their ability to interact, and it seems to me that this could be the answer to the mechanism by which consciousness arises from matter as a dualistic, independent thing. This is called faith though, and here is not the proper place to defend it. So perhaps some sort of emergent substance dualism, as I said from the start I am here to question one position, not defend any of the numerous others. Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
