What's wrong with Materialism?

[ADigitalArtist]

The biggest problem with materialism is that the terminology hasn't evolved in lay usage. The philosophy of materialism as stands is pretty conflicted with modern physics, as it originally could not distinguish matter independently from energy. Let alone the conflicts with quantum mechanics. When people say they're materialists (including myself), they're usually talking about a lay version of the term that isn't actually something philosophers use anymore. And what they usually mean is usually something entirely different, such as Naturalism, Substance Monism, Ontological Monism, Physicalism, Empiricism, Scientism etc. These things are very different from Materialism, and convey a lot more nuance. But, thems the breaks when you're discussing philosophy with a general audience. So I often use 'Materialism' even though philosophical Materialism isn't something I actually ascribe to, because it's more likely to be understood.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I'm a materialist, principally because I think the primary question is, What's true in reality? and I'm not aware of any meaningful alternative to materialism.

By 'materialism' I mean (as Smart and Armstrong put it) the idea that the only entities and processes that exist are those recognized by physics from time to time.

And accordingly, by 'reality' I mean the realm of the physical sciences, the sum of things that have objective existence.

The purpose of this thread is to invite those who oppose materialism to set out the reasons for their opposition.

If you reject materialism, why?

Sounds like you ruled out any alternatives to materialism by assumption

 

[shunyadragon]

It makes people shallow, then you end up with bad episodes of the Walking Dead. Know what I mean? Just dead people walking.

Actually considering the fallible nature of humans clinging to the delusion of a sense of belonging to ancient paradigms, believers in whatever God or God(s) may become . . . 'Just dead people walking.'

 

[shunyadragon]

The biggest problem with materialism is that the terminology hasn't evolved in lay usage. The philosophy of materialism as stands is pretty conflicted with modern physics, as it originally could not distinguish matter independently from energy. Let alone the conflicts with quantum mechanics. When people say they're materialists (including myself), they're usually talking about a lay version of the term that isn't actually something philosophers use anymore. And what they usually mean is usually something entirely different, such as Naturalism, Substance Monism, Ontological Monism, Physicalism, Empiricism, Scientism etc. These things are very different from Materialism, and convey a lot more nuance. But, thems the breaks when you're discussing philosophy with a general audience. So I often use 'Materialism' even though philosophical Materialism isn't something I actually ascribe to, because it's more likely to be understood.

Even though I am not a Materialist. I consider Materialism (Metaphysical Naturalism) very much compatable with science. Most, but not all, physicists and cosmologists are materialists, and unlike many Theists they got the science right.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Even though I am not a Materialist. I consider Materialism (Metaphysical Naturalism) very much compatable with science. Most, but not all, physicists and cosmologists are materialists, and unlike many Theists they got the science right.

Metaphysical naturalism and Materialism aren't the same view, though they're often used interchangeably in lay discussions, which was my point. They have some overlap (though naturalism does not require materialism) and are both a type of monism, but they have some pretty striking differences. Here is a discussion that talks about it in lay terms:
Metaphysical naturalism vs. materialism? : Philosophy • Rational Skepticism Forum

 

[shunyadragon]

Metaphysical naturalism and Materialism aren't the same view, though they're often used interchangeably in lay discussions, which was my point. They have some overlap (though naturalism does not require materialism) and are both a type of monism, but they have some pretty striking differences. Here is a discussion that talks about it in lay terms:
Metaphysical naturalism vs. materialism? : Philosophy • Rational Skepticism Forum

Without complications . . .

From: materialism definition - Google Search
Materialism - PHILOSOPHY - the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

I disagree, by definition, you cannot distinguish between the two, but you may make a distinction of sub-beliefs not intended in this thread. True that "Naturalism" does not imply materialism today, but Metaphysical or Ontological Naturalism implies the Materialism or Physicalism, and in . . .

From: thhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/is case is compatible with science.

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Today the use is more specific . . .

"Many ontological naturalists thus adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological and other such “special” subject matters. They hold that there is nothing more to the mental, biological and social realms than arrangements of physical entities.

The driving motivation for this kind of ontological naturalism is the need to explain how special entities can have physical effects. Thus many contemporary thinkers adopt a physicalist view of the mental realm because they think that otherwise we will be unable to explain how mental processes can causally influence our bodies and other physical items. Similar considerations motivate ontologically naturalist views of the biological realm, the social realm, and so on.

It may not be immediately obvious why this need to account for physical effects should impose any substantial naturalist constraints on some category. After all, there seems nothing a prioriincoherent in the idea of radically unscientific “supernatural” events exerting a causal influence on physical processes, as is testified by the conceptual cogency of traditional stories about the worldly interventions of immaterial deities and other outlandish beings."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Materialism - PHILOSOPHY - the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

There are 'movements' (forces) that are not associated with matter. So in its most simplified definition, that statement is already incompatible with modern physics. Which is why people use these different and updated stances which take a more evolved view that IS updated to contemporary science. You will find very few hard philosophy discussions which use (metaphysical) naturalism as interchangeable with materialism for that reason. Plus, as was pointed out, you won't see a lot of people use naturalism at all because it's pretty vague, and you're more likely to see things like ontological monism or physicalism to refer to the stances later in your post.

 

[Nous]

By 'materialism' I mean (as Smart and Armstrong put it) the idea that the only entities and processes that exist are those recognized by physics from time to time.

[. . .]

If you reject materialism, why?

What are the “entities and processes . . . recognized by physics from time to time”?

Where does one get the delusional idea that "physics" “recognizes” certain “entities and processes from time to time”? Obviously such alleged “recognition” of certain “entities and processes” and the non-recognition of other “entities and processes” is not the product of the scientific method.

And obviously it is neither scientific nor logical to deny the existence of any “entities and processes” or anything else whose existence has not been experimentally ruled out. If someone had told this sort of materialist in 1900 that wave functions exist, the materialist would deny it, presumably claiming that wave functions are “supernatural”. The materialism that you espouse generates wrong answers, wrong ideas, wrong beliefs at any given time.

When Smart and Armstrong wrote about materialism in the early 1960s, no physics book mentioned anything about strange attractors of chaos theory. Attractors had not been discovered at that time. How wrong Smart and Armstrong were to believe that only those entities and processes existed that were mentioned in physics textbooks in the early 60s.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm a materialist, principally because I think the primary question is, What's true in reality? and I'm not aware of any meaningful alternative to materialism.

By 'materialism' I mean (as Smart and Armstrong put it) the idea that the only entities and processes that exist are those recognized by physics from time to time.

And accordingly, by 'reality' I mean the realm of the physical sciences, the sum of things that have objective existence.

The purpose of this thread is to invite those who oppose materialism to set out the reasons for their opposition.

If you reject materialism, why?

Your materialism has a scientific definition.
Most people think of the social definition.
Little Oxford Dictionary: Concentration on material possessions rather than spiritual values.

I find both the scientific and social definitions to be strange, the one because I am not focused upon physics, the other because nobody as yet has been able to show me a value that I think is 'spiritual'.

All I know is that the less I have, so the more free I feel. I don't know why, I have just accepted such feelings after decades of experiencing the same mindset.

 

[sayak83]

Even though I am not a Materialist. I consider Materialism (Metaphysical Naturalism) very much compatable with science. Most, but not all, physicists and cosmologists are materialists, and unlike many Theists they got the science right.

@ADigitalArtist

I am still not clear what, according to physicalism, the ontological category of quantum wavefunction or quantum state vector is supposed to be?

I am also not clear what according to physicalism, sets and numbers are supposed to be?

Finally I am not clear when does the question "what is it like to be an X" cease to make logical sense and why. For fish? Bacteria? Why not a tornado? Or a hydrogen atom? Zombies? Babies? Is there anything inherently illogical in saying electrons "like" being in low energy states and "strive" to achieve them by "flinging out" photons from within themselves.... or that descriptions in terms of mechanisms are inherently true-er than equivalent descriptions in terms of intentionality?

How to define information units without smuggling in subjective states like "knowing" in the mix. Or should be extend the status of actual knowing to things like thermocouples and transducers?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@ADigitalArtist

I am still not clear what, according to physicalism, the ontological category of quantum wavefunction or quantum state vector is supposed to be?

I am also not clear what according to physicalism, sets and numbers are supposed to be?

Finally I am not clear when does the question "what is it like to be an X" cease to make logical sense and why. For fish? Bacteria? Why not a tornado? Or a hydrogen atom? Zombies? Babies? Is there anything inherently illogical in saying electrons "like" being in low energy states and "strive" to achieve them by "flinging out" photons from within themselves.... or that descriptions in terms of mechanisms are inherently true-er than equivalent descriptions in terms of intentionality?

How to define information units without smuggling in subjective states like "knowing" in the mix. Or should be extend the status of actual knowing to things like thermocouples and transducers?

I wish I could pretend to be well versed enough in philosophy to be able to give you a comprehensive answer to those questions, but deep dives that far into the subject is way outside my specialty. But hey, if you ever have a medicine or biology question look me up.

 

[Kemosloby]

Actually considering the fallible nature of humans clinging to the delusion of a sense of belonging to ancient paradigms, believers in whatever God or God(s) may become . . . 'Just dead people walking.'

Well Touche'

 

[George-ananda]

A while back when you linked me that website, the vast majority of 'controlled experiments' I saw were anything but. Most that even had published data (and a lot didnt. Just said 'a study' and left it without reference to anything published beyond an abstract) didn't follow scientific rigor for publishing, with non-transparant methodology, ambiguous language, or conclusions that absolutely don't follow from the data. Treating 'witness testimony' as scientifically admissible as anything but 'a collection of claims' when it's not (science isn't a courtroom).
It's the sort of things I see in new age medicine magazines talking about the healing power of magnetic bands and other scam grade nonsense. As a body of supposedly 'mountainous volume' of scientific evidence, it's pretty underwhelming. More like something geared towards convincing those already convinced.

OK, let me clarify my position. I was answering the question 'What's wrong with materialism'. For 'materialism' to be right there must never have been a single so-called paranormal event in the history of the universe. As to why I do not accept materialism for this reason I look at:

1. The millions/billions of anecdotal paranormal experiences in the history of mankind (including a couple of my own).

2. The investigations of countless researchers in the last 150 years of modern parapsychology.

3, Controlled experiments showing fantastic odds against a materialist explanation.

Those are just some of the reasons I reject materialism.

Now in your response you tried to make science the final arbiter of the question. That for me would be scientism (Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.)

Now I actually agree that physical science can not work with the mountains of anecdotal evidence (including my own). And I actually believe science at this time should be agnostic to all this anecdotal evidence but I personally (not being a follower of scientism) consider this anecdotal data and all things in forming my personal worldview.

 

[George-ananda]

Actually considering the fallible nature of humans clinging to the delusion of a sense of belonging to ancient paradigms, believers in whatever God or God(s) may become . . . 'Just dead people walking.'

And that is coming from a believer in God (Baha'i)??

 

[ADigitalArtist]

OK, let me clarify my position. I was answering the question 'What's wrong with materialism'. For 'materialism' to be right there must never have been a single so-called paranormal event in the history of the universe. As to why I do not accept materialism for this reason I look at:

1. The millions/billions of anecdotal paranormal experiences in the history of mankind (including a couple of my own).

2. The investigations of countless researchers in the last 150 years of modern parapsychology.

3, Controlled experiments showing fantastic odds against a materialist explanation.

Those are just some of the reasons I reject materialism.

Now in your response you tried to make science the final arbiter of the question. That for me would be scientism (Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.)

Now I actually agree that physical science can not work with the mountains of anecdotal evidence (including my own). And I actually believe science at this time should be agnostic to all this anecdotal evidence but I personally (not being a follower of scientism) consider this anecdotal data and all things in forming my personal worldview.

This is a trap I see in many people claiming validity of paranormal evidence. They frame a claim as a scientific one, and attempt to cite scientific support for their world view, but when it fails to actually live up to the standards of the framing device, they insult the framing device and require ad populum acceptance or neutrality. But no matter how many millions of people and cultures misperceive our sun sheds mostly yellow light, it's still mostly white light (with a tiny bit on the green spectrum). Thus millions/billions of people can still be incorrect.
The links you've presented to me have asserted scientific evidence of their claim, so it's silly to then say expecting the evidence to be as scientific as claimed is 'scientism' (a word I see using almost exclusively as a pejorative in the same way some religious people try and frame atheism as 'a religion' in a game of equivocation.)
I'm not a 'scientism' (which is a weird word because it's got no noun. Someone who is a scientist is not necessarily a follower of scientism) because I don't reduce all relevant fields of study to just science. Because that's what it really is. Evidence: I'm an artist and I also dabble in history and philosophy, none of which are scientific fields yet I still consider valuable to learning and the human experience. Not being a follower of scientism though doesn't mean that I can't have the completely valid expectation that claims about the natural world (which includes the claimed effect ON the natural world by 'something not natural') be empirically accessible, ESPECIALLY if they're being framed as such. And I don't think "parapsychologists" have come anywhere near to achieving that.

 

[sayak83]

I wish I could pretend to be well versed enough in philosophy to be able to give you a comprehensive answer to those questions, but deep dives that far into the subject is way outside my specialty. But hey, if you ever have a medicine or biology question look me up.

What's the situation with repeatability in biology?
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

 

[blü 2]

I am well beyond starting my inquires but far from resolving them. I understand materialism applies to biology but it is the same it can explain the blood, the lungs but fails to completely explain the working unit.

With respect, that seems to be moving the goalposts.

Anyway, grateful if you'd clarify what you mean by the 'working unit' and what you say is 'completely unexplained'.

 

[blü 2]

Well the mountain I am talking about includes controlled experiments yielding fantastic odds against chance and investigations done by many scientists and investigators in over 150 years of research.

Time for some examples that have been independently authenticated by scientific method, no?

I'm not aware of any, as you can tell from my previous posts, so I hope to learn something from your reply.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What's the situation with repeatability in biology?
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies'

In biology there's so many variables in most studies that repeating is like trying to repeat the exact seed crystal growing into the exact snowflake. While achievable, is difficult. Some failure to replicate is expected when dealing with lots of variables. And that's usually okay, so long as the methodology is sound and the documentation is thorough. However, this is also why it's so important to understand that novel techniques for a protocol is relevant to studies, not just your standard testing protocol. I bet dollars to doughnuts you'd see the rate of successful repetition increase if
A. Time and cost budgeting would allow delay of papers before novel components to the protocol can be thoroughly described beyond standard protocol. An incomplete release leaves peers in the dark, and this is more a problem with standard protocol than the method so to speak.
B. Legal frameworks where the novel components of a protocol can become intellectual property blocks complete descriptions. Again making the study incomplete.
C. Allowing for adjustments that manual practice may take time and repetition on their own to factor into your trials, if A and B are being met. This is also hard to do in some cases because some projects just don't allow for the time necessary to do this. And it sucks when you couldn't get a retest right because you weren't given the time to do it right.

 

[blü 2]

Mathematics and logic are not part of mentation as we see that computers can do both.

No, our brain processes come equipped with the ability to learn abstract subjects like maths and logic, and so it's fair to say this ability is part of our mentation. After all, computers can compose sentences in English and write or speak them. Do you say the human capacity for speech is therefore not part of human mentation?

More importantly math and logic are quite independent and stands apart from material processes that happen to embody them. Same with information bits.

Mathematical objects and processes are abstractions, and the human brain is good at abstractions. Children learn early that this chair and that chair can give rise to the abstraction 'a chair', for example.

As well, maths doesn't exist independently of the concepts of maths in brains. In the absence of brains there is no maths, there are no numbers or quantities.

Consciousness requires an extensive discussion and I would prefer a separate thread. Briefly, saying that some material processes are correlated with conscious experience explains as little regarding ontology of conscious experience as saying " voltage patterns in CPU circuits are correlated with math processing" says about ontology of mathematical structures.

Here's the link (which I gave earlier in this thread in another discussion) to the >Global workspace theory< of consciousness, which was thought the most fruitful hypothesis when last I was digging in these matters.

Supernaturalism (whatever that means) is not the only alternative to physicalism. Both neutral monism and dual aspect ontology are options. While Eastern philosophies have these in far more developed forms, perhaps it will be easier if provides examples from Western thinkers.
Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I didn't say there weren't options. I said that materialism is the only conclusion that I find satisfactory.

Are you a neutral monist, by the way?