The bait & switch on discussions of materialism

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reasoning can't be valid if nothing guides the process that creates you.

Doesn't follow.

You would be nothing but a machine doing what chance programs you to do.

Combo points!

Strawman with some false dichotomy sauce on top.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whoosh! How did the laws that regulate gravity come about? Magic?

Laws don't "regulate" things.
They aren't prescriptive.

They are DEscriptive.

This has been brought to your attention before.

 

[PureX]

I've noticed that during discussions of materialism & physicalism, people who aren't materialists or physicalists tend to muddle a number of issues together.

Consider two questions:

1. What should we believe exists?
2. How many categories should we group the things we believe exist into?


The question of materialism vs. immaterialism - if we go by dictionary and encyclopedia definitions - only focuses on question #2: materialists group all the things they believe in into one category, while immaterialists group things into two or more categories.

Theoretically, any given "immaterial" thing that an immaterialist believes in could also be believed in by a materialist; the materialist would just say that the thing is material.

... so why does every discussion about materialism vs. immaterialism end up focusing on what things each side believes in or not?

Why do discussions about question 2 virtually always end up about question 1? Is there something inherent in saying "I'll divide all the things I believe in into two categories" that implies "I'm going to have lower standards of evidence than people who put all the things they believe in into a single category"? If not, what's going on?

The problem is that no one ever bothers to define what it means to "exist". Everyone assumes that a "tree" exists, but does the idea of a tree exist? And if it doesn't then how did we identify the existence of the thing we're calling a "tree"? How did we differentiate it's existence from the existence of everything else around it and from which it's existence springs? In fact, it would seem that the idea of a tree existing must exist before the tree, itself, can. As without the idea of the tree existing the tree is just a lost bit of the total mass of undifferentiated existential phenomena.

What really defines a 'materialist' from an 'immaterialist' is the acceptance (or lack thereof) of idea as a fundamental existential phenomena (the realm of existence called "metaphysical"). The materialist chooses to believe that ideas don't 'really' exist. That only the matter and energy that creates the idea exists. While the immaterialist understands that without the idea of "existence" (and a great many other ideas), nothing exists but an uncognated phenomenal sea of sensoral stumuli. Within which the whole question of what exists and what doesn't can't even be asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that no one ever bothers to define what it means to "exist".

I'ld say that those things that have some kind of measurable, or otherwise objectively detectable, manifestation are things that I would label as "existing".

Everyone assumes that a "tree" exists, but does the idea of a tree exist?

I don't need to "assume" that trees exist. I'm looking at one right now in front of my office.

And if it doesn't then how did we identify the existence of the thing we're calling a "tree"?

It's right there, in front of my office.
Measurable, detectable, quantifiable.

How did we differentiate it's existence from the existence of everything else around it and from which it's existence springs?

Observation.
My buddy also witnessed first hand how very existing trees are, when he smashed into one with his car.

In fact, it would seem that the idea of a tree existing must exist before the tree, itself, can.

That makes no sense to me.

However, there certainly are things that only were defined in theory before they were established in practice.
Like atoms. Atomic theory was a thing long before we were able to directly observe atoms. Didn't stop us from splitting them open and harnessing the power that came out of it and releasing it into a nuclear explosion though. So that by itself was also a form of objective detection.

The atom was purely theoretical. But the theory had so much evidence that people assumed its accuracy. And clearly they were correct.

As without the idea of the tree existing the tree is just a lost bit of the total mass of undifferentiated existential phenomena.

No idea what you mean by that.

What really defines a 'materialist' from an 'immaterialist' is the acceptance of idea as fundamental existential phenomena (the realm of existence called "metaphysical").

Then I'm a materialist.
What you said there, seems to me to be nothing but a fancy way of saying that "immaterialists" just imagine things and then assume those imagined things to be actually real.

The materialist chooses to believe that ideas don't 'really' exist.

That's nonsensical.
Obviously ideas exist. But they exist as thoughts only. They don't have objective existence in the outside world.

btw: I think you are being a bit confusing with the word "idea". Isn't "concept" a better term for what you are talking about?

That only the matter and energy that creates the idea exists. While the immaterialist understands that without the idea of "existence" (and a great many other ideas), nothing exists but an uncognated phenomenl soup. Within which the whole question of what exists and what doesn't can't even be asked.

Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[Heyo]

The problem is that no one ever bothers to define what it means to "exist".

5 Planes of Existence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that no one ever bothers to define what it means to "exist". Everyone assumes that a "tree" exists, but does the idea of a tree exist? And if it doesn't then how did we identify the existence of the thing we're calling a "tree"? How did we differentiate it's existence from the existence of everything else around it and from which it's existence springs? In fact, it would seem that the idea of a tree existing must exist before the tree, itself, can. As without the idea of the tree existing the tree is just a lost bit of the total mass of undifferentiated existential phenomena.

What really defines a 'materialist' from an 'immaterialist' is the acceptance of idea as fundamental existential phenomena (the realm of existence called "metaphysical"). The materialist chooses to believe that ideas don't 'really' exist. That only the matter and energy that creates the idea exists. While the immaterialist understands that without the idea of "existence" (and a great many other ideas), nothing exists but an uncognated phenomenl soup. Within which the whole question of what exists and what doesn't can't even be asked.

I don't think that's the difference. It's not like non-materialists go around saying things like "my god and the concept of a soul are both ideas that I hold, and therefore they 'exist.'" They're still talking about some sort of existence outside of the mind.

In fact, plenty of theists argue that their god can't be conceived of... that it's beyond human conception.

 

[Clara Tea]

I've noticed that during discussions of materialism & physicalism, people who aren't materialists or physicalists tend to muddle a number of issues together.

Consider two questions:

1. What should we believe exists?
2. How many categories should we group the things we believe exist into?


The question of materialism vs. immaterialism - if we go by dictionary and encyclopedia definitions - only focuses on question #2: materialists group all the things they believe in into one category, while immaterialists group things into two or more categories.

Theoretically, any given "immaterial" thing that an immaterialist believes in could also be believed in by a materialist; the materialist would just say that the thing is material.

... so why does every discussion about materialism vs. immaterialism end up focusing on what things each side believes in or not?

Why do discussions about question 2 virtually always end up about question 1? Is there something inherent in saying "I'll divide all the things I believe in into two categories" that implies "I'm going to have lower standards of evidence than people who put all the things they believe in into a single category"? If not, what's going on?

Penguin: "1. What should we believe exists?"

Believe in (and obey) God or burn in the lake of fire for all eternity. We don't have to believe the lies, but we have to pretend that we do. We have to believe that Jesus died for our sins, though He was murdered (He had asked God why God had foresaken Him). We have to believe that God is goodness and love and forgiveness. Yet, nothing that God has done seems remotely like that.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't think that's the difference. It's not like non-materialists go around saying things like "my god and the concept of a soul are both ideas that I hold, and therefore they 'exist.'" They're still talking about some sort of existence outside of the mind.

In fact, plenty of theists argue that their god can't be conceived of... that it's beyond human conception.

It's okay that God doesn't exist if we don't exist either.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Laws don't "regulate" things.
They aren't prescriptive.

They are DEscriptive.

This has been brought to your attention before.

Which doesn't change anything. In your world view, things working in certain ways means there's unalterable laws governing them. Otherwise you have just confessed that magic is a real possibility.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This again makes no sense at all.

Even as an empty, baseless, bare assertion... it is mindbogglingly absurd.

Nice deflection. In a purposeless universe you can't know that what your mind tells you is what really is. You are just a flesh machine doing what it has to.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We don't know - yet.

I'm assuming here that with "the laws that regulate gravity" you mean "what gives gravity the properties it has".
Your answer to that is "god". We can't disprove that - yet. 300 years ago your answer would have been not disprovable if the question was "what causes lightning".
You propose a "god of the gaps".

The gaps have narrowed and they will narrow further. Today, if you propose a god that created the universe and the natural laws and constants, you only get a deos. A god which's work has been done in the first 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the initial start of this universe. Everything from then on was predetermined by the properties of the matter and forces.

Impossible. Chaos can't create order.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nice deflection. In a purposeless universe you can't know that what your mind tells you is what really is. You are just a flesh machine doing what it has to.

If that were true, how would God change that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Impossible. Chaos can't create order.

So is God "chaos" or "order"?

 

[Wildswanderer]

If that were true, how would God change that?

By creating purposefully. By creating beings in his image who have true Free will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By creating purposefully. By creating beings in his image who have true Free will.

So you think that "true free will":

- is possible
- can't arise without intervention of a god

Interesting.

I have no idea how you could ever defend this position, but interesting.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you think that "true free will":

- is possible
- can't arise without intervention of a god

Interesting.

I have no idea how you could ever defend this position, but interesting.

Many atheists agree that we live in a deterministic universe, because they rightly understand that a naturalistic Universe demands that everything be one long unbroken line of causation. If there's one fly in the ointment, one instance of a miracle, then there's a monkey wrench into that unbroken line.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it does. If there's nothing behind the curtain there's no reason to think that anything you think is logical. You just admitted you might be totally talking gibberish and you can't do otherwise.
Logic is completely subjective if there's no purpose to the universe existing.

Is that your attempt at presuppositional apologetics?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

By creating purposefully. By creating beings in his image who have true Free will.

I think this is the real issue you have. You're conflating 'purpose' with 'laws' and 'order' when these are all independent concepts. That one begs the other of course isn't the view of most anyone, theist or otherwise.

There are theists which are biological or physical determinists, just that you were created with a particular destiny you can't choose against. That is a result of the makeup of your creation. In fact I'd say most theists have this view.

There are theists and atheists that believe that free will is functionally impossible with an omniscient creator, because the future is fixed and you can't choose against the path that God creates you on, so the 'choice' you were created with is just a powerful illusion.

There are apatheists like me that don't believe purpose can be ascribed by anyone but the user. If someone creates a straw to drink with but I decide to only use them to blow paint on a canvas than the purpose ascribed by a creator makes no difference to me, it's not the purpose I choose. And if the creator told me I'm only allowed to use it for drinking I would tell said creator to **** off.

Order in the sense of entropy isn't spread evenly throughout a system and can collect and then distribute like waves in a pond. Order comes from disorder every time a low information, form and potential energy water droplet freezes into highly ordered high potential energy high information crystalline ice chip or snowflake. Every time simple compressive energy on carbon forms diamonds. Every time salt mud flats dry into tesselations, and every time mutations or infections add onto gene sequences.

Laws, again, are not some thing that exists and causes other things to do something. Laws are descriptions we make of objects' relations to other objects. Laws don't describe a cause, they describe an effect, and the effect is relational to the object were describing, not some third party power. You don't need a god to have 'things with attributes.'

Addendum: logic tracks cause and effect. It is a series of if;then statements. All you need for logic is to have an observable cause and effect, then describe it accurately.

 

[Heyo]

Impossible. Chaos can't create order.

The universe isn't chaotic, it is very orderly. Everything moves according to it's property, at least on the macro level. (There is randomness in quantum phenomena which makes the universe probabilistic instead of totally deterministic.)

 

[Heyo]

Many atheists agree that we live in a deterministic universe, because they rightly understand that a naturalistic Universe demands that everything be one long unbroken line of causation. If there's one fly in the ointment, one instance of a miracle, then there's a monkey wrench into that unbroken line.

And you think you found the wrench?