Curse

DreamRunner · Apr 20, 2009, 03:40 PM // 15:40

I am not talking about the rise or need of collecting material goods of consumer purposes but the rise of materialism in a philosophical sense with fierce aggression from a large group of people. It has only been occuring in the last couple of years and with the sudden new development of atheism that holds the idea of materialism to be true. I am not trying to attack atheism but it is just an observation i've seen and it also has become popular within many scientific fields too. I do know that pragmatic thought has been slowly developing during the 20th century and will continue to grow in the 21st but I will leave that for later.

Materialism holds that the only thing truly can exist is matter. This includes fundamentally all things are composed of physical material and all phenomena. I remember someone Guild Wars(ingame) that was from guru said the concept of "nothing" cannot exist. I do think differently but I think you get the idea what I mean.

I just want to know your thoughts on this subject.

Master Fuhon · Apr 20, 2009, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Just a warning I haven’t looked into this too long, so what I’m actually doing is combining my previous thinking on the subject. The first place that I ran into materialism was in reading stuff on neuroscience, related to all practices of treating “problems” with the brain. I hold the belief that the brain should be considered a major signaling mechanism for recognizing problems with the “self” (I didn’t think it was appropriate to only rule ‘body’ based on current knowledge). Materialists invested a heavy amount of belief into the consideration that you could manipulate brain matter and “cure” problems. The proof they rely on is that the work they do results in chemical reactions within the brain that cause symptoms to disappear. Because it's completely arguable about whether symptoms are the problem.

The part I agree with is the opinion that anything within existence has to manifest itself to be detectable in the world of experience of the five senses. So in that regards, materialism was the beginning of an understanding that should have been built upon. The problem with this is that science has not always respected each of the senses equally. Humans are also relatively poor in the five senses anyway. Science has historically favored the human eyes above all else; if you tell someone something exists, they demand to see it. Science has used this tactic to win debate for many centuries (against religion especially), so people should know it: The way you argue against a belief in something is to discredit the senses used to detect that something.

Now the great thing about science is that just because you have faulty senses, does not mean that everything else does. So what science does is it tries to replicate the perfect organ that is able to detect what the human senses cannot. The problem with this is in the way the data is confirmed; it’s confirmed as if “our” devices have perfect detection capabilities to make up for the lack of other sensory data. So as far as my complaint about current science goes; even with the devices we’ve created, we often viewed how light reflects off things. That is our current definition of perfect sight: the ability to see any trace amount of light that reflects off an object. Our definition of perfect sight was dependent on the previous definition of our own eyes (not to start a longer argument, but all of our definitions are based on our own knowledge). That's just an assumption that we were already perfect.

Aside from this being a long explanation, light reflection was what science used to determine that something has material substance when the theory of materialism came out. But then we made a leap of understanding that we never filled the gap. Black holes do not reflect light. The way you detect a black hole is to notice that light rays you should have received have somehow vanished somewhere. So despite being what appears to be a contradiction of current science: we know black holes exist because of the absence of sensory data we were supposed to receive. Since black holes have come around, we rely on understanding the reactions of things (while still believing in materialism for some reason). Indirect empirical data is now considered more reliable.

I don’t know that materialism is so popular; it’s presented with a high amount of authority (has the near full backing of current science and health related industries). The toughest part of arguing with materialism is that you are calling material cures “placebo effects”; but that’s fair enough, because non-material cures are considered placebo effects by materialism. Materialists want more proof against their arguments; unfortunately they only accept material proof, so it’s a bind.

I think the existence of black holes and forces should have been enough to put the theory in doubt. You can see the effects of a force, but you can’t see the force. I don’t see how the understanding of forces is enough to conclude that a force is entirely material. A force has to manifest itself in the material world because it exists; I don’t think it has a separable material component. It's probably semantics that people consider forces to be material. But you can no longer consider thoughts/emotions as proof against materialism, because materialists can detect material changes within the brain to reconfirm their beliefs. Your thoughts are now considered similar to electrical impulses.

But as far as substances that make up the universe go, monism looks like the right choice; I just don’t think materialism is the appropriate choice.

Snow Bunny · Apr 20, 2009, 08:04 PM // 20:04

My thoughts exist.

Most philosophy that comes from after 1900 just sort of sucks. Sorry bro.

Master Fuhon · Apr 20, 2009, 08:58 PM // 20:58

I’ll try to be more scientific this explanation, using terms and concepts that people may have already seen. In certain beginning physical sciences you get taught about the dual properties of light because this is how discovery went: things were viewed as a particle and then as a wave. Dualities don’t exist as they appear to. They only get taught as such because a person needs to make the connection between a previous belief system and a new one.

Dualities are actually things on the same spectrum. Hot and cold is a common example of this. As far as matter is concerned it has changed definition away from referring to mass/volume/substance even if no one else is aware that it has. The current definition looks closer to: matter at rest is referred to as a particle, and matter in motion is referred to as a wave. If you tried to plot the equation of each, matter at rest would be a point, and matter in motion would be an equation (sinusoidal or otherwise, resembling ocean/sound waves). I don’t know if it’s finalized enough to state that certain matter could exist that cannot achieve rest and remain in existence.

If you look at what materialism/physicalism is closely, these theories have changed their own definitions often to stay in existence. Individual people do not change their definitions as fast; which is a somewhat good thing because you can plot all of the data points based on previous beliefs. So outdated theories are very valuable because they are like plotted data points that one can follow to find a proper equation.

The main reason why I try to refute materialism is that components of particle understanding still remain deeply entrenched in the theory. In earlier times we did not use equations, because we were only able to track things at rest. The particle was the original definition of what material was, and it was treated almost synonymously with mass. Each time a solid object was divided however, we only discovered smaller particles that were engaged in faster motion.

The device created to end this dispute was known as the Large Hadron Collider. The goal of the testing was to find an elementary particle referred to as the Higgs-Boson. But in the end, the theory does not get defeated: definitions of matter get redefined. Higgs-Boson looks to be what science intends to use to conclusively determine that mass can be measured in electron volts, a unit of energy. Just understand that sometimes people might continue to call the new theory a branch of materialism/atheism; even if everyone is agreeing that the universe is made of a form of energy that they call “Higgs-Boson” instead of "God".

pumpkin pie · Apr 21, 2009, 05:24 AM // 05:24

it needs a better name, I thought you were referring to people who likes material possession :P~ itisthereism would be a better name ( it is there ism)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

My thoughts exist.

your thoughts come from materialism / itisthereism

DreamRunner · Apr 21, 2009, 03:10 PM // 15:10

I would actually like a definition of subjectivity from a materialist. So far, no one can give me a good answer to it. All I can find is that subjectivity is a mental state and every-time I try to think about it, I just end up back where I started.

pumpkin pie · Apr 21, 2009, 03:32 PM // 15:32

how can you have a subjectivity definition from a materialist/it is thereist, when they would give you an objectivity definition?

Master Fuhon · Apr 21, 2009, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

I would actually like a definition of subjectivity from a materialist. So far, no one can give me a good answer to it. All I can find is that subjectivity is a mental state and every-time I try to think about it, I just end up back where I started.

I recently added something to my definition of objectivity (not a materialist). I don't know if this is adequate really to be considered the full definition on it's own. I also don't know whether it's of any help, but it's probably rare that you would get the response you seek.

Objectivity is to unify points of view based on similarities, not divide them based on differences. Something more objective is something that combines more points of view in its implementation.

I think it flows from this statement that subjectivity is something that discards information based on it being too different. Very often people will be presenting information beneath the standard I just presented as objectivity. That is why philosophy shouldn't just work to discredit ideas, but to keep alive the old so that it can be unified with the new.

Silvance · Apr 22, 2009, 02:03 PM // 14:03

What you're talking about is materialist reductionism. It is a truncated, reduced view of reality where ideas and beings become things, where the abstract is more real than the concrete, and where thinking you understand something means you have broken it down to its component parts, and broken down those component parts to their component parts ad infinatum. It's been going on ever since the Greeks got hung up on how to distinguish between being itself (sein selbst) and being of things (sein des seienden). Plato was the one who focused on the thingliness of things (seienheit des seienden) and basically forgot what being was, even though he and those who came after still talked about it. Where it really came to a head though is right before the Industrial Revolution and after the 30 years war, where the world was no longer a mystical place and became nothing but a world of things to be exploited and resources to be consumed (human resources, anyone?). Such a paradigm shift allowed the Industrial Revolution to happen and coincided with the modern age.

All things being equal, the post-modern age isn't that different from the modern age. Sure, science is more willing to see context through quantum physics rather than the rigidity of Newtonian physics (the example of energy as particles and waves is a good one here), but overall, the paradigm is the same. The world is still a mechanistic succession of causal forces populated by things rather than beings. Now there's a split, often referred to as Dualism, between the material and the immaterial, or rather, the scientific and the unscientific.

Psychology grew up on one side of this divide through philosophy, but wanted so desperately to be scientific that it gave up what it really was so that it could stand up and say 'we can predict, and therefore control, what humans are going to do.' Cue behaviorism. John Watson once claimed that he could find the stimulus that made humans build tall buildings or write books. Did he ever? No, he never got beyond studying reflexes (blinking, drooling, vomiting, response to light or noise, etc.). Why did he fail? It's because humans are beings, not things, and infinitely more complex than a single stimulus leading to a cause/effect relationship. All in all, that's the way most of reality is.

Let me give an example, although let me say that the example itself isn't mine. I've seen it in several places from Frank Herbert to Alan Watts.

There was a boy who came up to a high wooden fence that he couldn't see through or over. He could hear something moving on the other side and he found a little hole in the fence, just big enough to look through, so he leaned against the fence and pressed his face to the hole so he could look out. After a moment he saw the head of a donkey walk by, then its body, then its tail. He waited a few minutes and the donkey came back. He watched its head go by, then its body, then its tail. He stepped away from the fence and exclaimed "The head of the donkey causes the tail!"

Does the boy's conclusion at the end make you want to say "you got it wrong!" like it does me? The donkey is a whole being. Yes, it has different, distinct parts, but it is still a whole being.

Quote:

I would actually like a definition of subjectivity from a materialist. So far, no one can give me a good answer to it. All I can find is that subjectivity is a mental state and every-time I try to think about it, I just end up back where I started.

Chances are, you'll never get one that will satisfy you. Materialist reductionists deny the subjective. The subjective isn't real to them. The mind is nothing more than the brain to them.

Quote:

how can you have a subjectivity definition from a materialist/it is thereist, when they would give you an objectivity definition?

You've basically hit on the answer. These quotes say it better than I could.

Quote:

“Dualism fails to explain the relationship between mind and matter, in particular how the former can be functionally conjoined with the latter; materialism denies the reality of subjective states of sentience. Dualism leads us to a dead end; materialism doesn’t even let us begin the journey.” ~ Arnold M. Schartz (The Mind & the Brain)

Quote:

“The world is only given to me once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them can not be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” ~ Erwin Shrodinger

My own answer would be this: Subjectivity and objectivity are one and the same thing. This isn't dualism, this is holism. It's the only way to avoid a truncated, reduced view of reality because it includes all possibilities.

DreamRunner · Apr 22, 2009, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Objectivity is to unify points of view based on similarities, not divide them based on differences. Something more objective is something that combines more points of view in its implementation.

Its only unified because we as a society all agree on the view that is presented to us. So the object(lets say a tree) is only a tree because we all agree on that the object that we all see is a tree. Rather that we created the tree, we discovered the tree.

Silvance raised some good points about psychology because since its trying to be based on scientific ground--objectivity becomes a problem when you have an idea on consciousness. When someone takes on an objective position as much as possible without dealing with any subjective foundation, it seems rather daunting. Its like not taking into account a part of who we are as humans that makes up as human beings. The humanness of who and what we are is part of ourselves that makes us grow out of this world.

What I'm trying to get at is that consciousness is inherently a subjective experience, we clearly need a definition of subjectivity in terms of physics if we are going to determine whether physics or physical reality is sufficient to understand consciousness. I think its not but we have a growing number of scientist that only have a world view as being physical. I agree with Silvance that we need to have an objective and subject view together rather than it being in dualistic nature. It seems that western society is trying to be or has become extremes of both subjectivity or objectivity.

Tullzinski · Apr 22, 2009, 03:42 PM // 15:42

MY BRAIN HURTS!

Master Fuhon · Apr 22, 2009, 04:00 PM // 16:00

We’ve already subdivided everything in billions of little parts. If you want to begin to put things back together, you can’t move straight to the conclusions. You have to re-present the dualisms we’ve created in our own minds the way we currently see them, only with a definition that allows for the two things to be put back together.

You have this advantage of already knowing the end point, but you still have to put in the work of showing people how to get there. The divides are so large that people can’t find the way to connect the two polarities. Particle vs. Wave, Good vs. Evil, Causal vs. Synchronous, Conservative vs. Liberal, etc. The reasons why people cannot just accept that these things can be combined is because the definitions we hold of them don’t allow them to be put back together. The definitions were what divided them in the first place.

If you put the definition of heat on the same scale as the definition of cold, you can do something to regulate the temperature. Whereas without that knowledge, you would only be tormented by hot and cold forever.

pumpkin pie · Apr 22, 2009, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullzinski

MY BRAIN HURTS!

lol, a friend of mine, a while back, self-admitted into the mental hospital because he read too much psychology books. sometimes thinking is bad

Tullzinski · Apr 22, 2009, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

lol, a friend of mine, a while back, self-admitted into the mental hospital because he read too much psychology books. sometimes thinking is bad

I can see why , I am too simple for this stuff...

Rhamia Darigaz · Apr 22, 2009, 06:08 PM // 18:08

axiom 1)atheism is true because religion is wrong.
axiom 2)atheism "holds the idea of materialism to be true"
therefore materialism must be true.
it's so simple, what is there to debate?

Master Fuhon · Apr 22, 2009, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhamia Darigaz

axiom 1)atheism is true because religion is wrong.
axiom 2)atheism "holds the idea of materialism to be true"
therefore materialism must be true.
it's so simple, what is there to debate?

Your axiom 1 is probably one of the most flawed things on the planet. One theory being claimed as wrong does not produce the logic that we must default to any other particular theory.

Demonstrating how your axiom 1 gets contorted to produce even worse situations...
1) we are dinosaurs because the theory of us being whales is wrong
2) dinosaur theory holds the idea of us being able to evolve into birds
therefore we must be a species of birds

The flaw in the axiom is that you are defining religion as a specific idea within your own head. That's the main force of reasoning you have used to rule that religion is wrong. If you truly believe religion is wrong, the default stance is to question the universe, not form another conclusion.

zwei2stein · Apr 22, 2009, 08:08 PM // 20:08

Materialism vs. Metaphysics

is about equal to

Scientific Method vs. Wishfull Thinking.

Later gives pretty results based on what we hope is true as mean of self protection (It is hard to accept not being "special" in some way just because we can percieve our existence. Even harder to accept ignorance about important questions that we can never learn (Existence after Death? What was before time? What is outside our Time Cone?) due to lack of information), former gives ugly truth. Bare (Yet complicated), Spartan, Lacking, Not really flattering to ego.

PS: Subjectivity is result of different set of information presented to human in his lifetime. Classical Platos Cave

Rhamia Darigaz · Apr 22, 2009, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Your axiom 1 is probably one of the most flawed things on the planet. One theory being claimed as wrong does not produce the logic that we must default to any other particular theory.

Demonstrating how your axiom 1 gets contorted to produce even worse situations...
1) we are dinosaurs because the theory of us being whales is wrong
2) dinosaur theory holds the idea of us being able to evolve into birds
therefore we must be a species of birds

The flaw in the axiom is that you are defining religion as a specific idea within your own head. That's the main force of reasoning you have used to rule that religion is wrong. If you truly believe religion is wrong, the default stance is to question the universe, not form another conclusion.

oh my bad, i always thought atheism was the idea that theism is wrong and that theism being wrong would therefore mean that atheism is right... -.-
you seem to think that atheism is a specific theory of how the universe came to be when it is simply the denial of theism. being an atheist does not imply that you accept any one particular theory.

the dinosaur/whale analogy is flawed because being a dinosaur is not implied by not being a whale. atheism and theism are mutually exclusive and one of them has to be right; either there is at least one deity or there isn't.

Master Fuhon · Apr 22, 2009, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Materialism vs. Metaphysics

is about equal to

Scientific Method vs. Wishfull Thinking.

Later gives pretty results based on what we hope is true as mean of self protection (It is hard to accept not being "special" in some way just because we can percieve our existence. Even harder to accept ignorance about important questions that we can never learn (Existence after Death? What was before time? What is outside our Time Cone?) due to lack of information), former gives ugly truth. Bare (Yet complicated), Spartan, Lacking, Not really flattering to ego.

Metaphysics refers to a branch of science “beyond the physical”. It was called philosophy to start, but then philosophy was divided into the physical and metaphysical. Metaphysics is a parent branch along with physics, created based upon a decision to take a combined approach its own separate way. It’s a decision to split the development of philosophy (love of wisdom) which was purposely divisive. The only reason why it contradicts materialism is because a common stance of materialism is “the world is all physical, there is no beyond”. Philosophy itself would have accepted the world no matter how it was to be found, based on how it was defined.

Scientific method is a method used to solve problems looking similar to: rely on previous experience, make prediction based on experience, perform tests, reason based on results. Wishful thinking is an individual approach used to solve problems, and does not compete with the scientific method at all. In fact, you can apply the scientific method to wishful thinking: note previous experience of wishful thinking, make prediction that wishful thinking works, perform test in which a person makes wishes, reason based on results.

This is what your previous analogy looks like:

Branch of philosophy vs. counter-branch of philosophy

Generic problem solving method vs. Specific problem solving approach
Newer method vs. older method

The only reason why your second example is funny is because science came to be out of wishful thinking. Ever hear the cliché “necessity is the mother of invention”? People wished to have mastery over the universe the way they already knew it, and they got their wish.

If everyone were to apply the true methods of science:
Wish for something, read a book about how to make that wish come true, perform experiment, reason based on results

So who writes the first book that we all read, that depicts how we make all of our wishes come true? Who creates science if the person who makes science does not already have the method presented to him? The original scientific method was the method that was used to create science, not imitate it. If the method we have today is the “one true scientific method”, we have only been imitating a pre-existing procedure for many years.

The method we call “scientific method” today is not the one original method that was used, because there was no pre-existing knowledge to work from and predict based upon. Which came first, human wishful-thinking or human reasoning? I know plenty of people who can wish, but less who can write procedure for getting something done. Science very likely came to be out of wishful thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for double post, but here’s the original scientific method that was used to create science.

1) Read conscious mental processes
2) Act on them

Here’s why it’s flawed: the subconscious exists. Your mental space can be infringed upon by anything that can be found coming out of the subconscious. Someone else’s anger can override your mental space and trick you into thinking it is your own.

The origins of science came to be out of reading conscious mental processes, with the full trust that it was you that you were receiving information from. This stance is often used to assert that a religious belief is coming from conciousness, when the person thinks it's coming from the subconcious.

If you were really sorry about the double you would have used the EDIT button.

Edited with a divider to indicate my second post was not a direct response to the original quote, but a followup.

Silvance · Apr 23, 2009, 12:15 AM // 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Materialism vs. Metaphysics

is about equal to

Scientific Method vs. Wishfull Thinking.

Later gives pretty results based on what we hope is true as mean of self protection (It is hard to accept not being "special" in some way just because we can percieve our existence. Even harder to accept ignorance about important questions that we can never learn (Existence after Death? What was before time? What is outside our Time Cone?) due to lack of information), former gives ugly truth. Bare (Yet complicated), Spartan, Lacking, Not really flattering to ego.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that knowledge gained without the scientific method is just wishful thinking? Aside from how ignorant it sounds, it can't even be validated. Why is the unscientific automatically something to be scorned and ridiculed?

As for your derision of existential questions, I'm a bit miffed that you seem to hold them in such disregard. Just because questions pertaining to freedom, responsibility, death, and meaning don't have objective, scientific answers makes them no less important to humans who are, last time I checked, beings of lived experience. Doesn't it seem more likely that such existential questions are important because they can't be answered in an objective way?

Quote:

PS: Subjectivity is result of different set of information presented to human in his lifetime. Classical Platos Cave

What do you mean by 'different set of information'? As far as I'm concerned, even if you're attempting to view the world only through an objective lens, you still receive information from the same five senses that you would view the world through if you were interested in subjective experience. Subjectivity is lived experience. Objectivity is reducing lived experience to things and component parts and denying the subjective.

Quote:

We’ve already subdivided everything in billions of little parts. If you want to begin to put things back together, you can’t move straight to the conclusions. You have to re-present the dualisms we’ve created in our own minds the way we currently see them, only with a definition that allows for the two things to be put back together.

You have this advantage of already knowing the end point, but you still have to put in the work of showing people how to get there. The divides are so large that people can’t find the way to connect the two polarities. Particle vs. Wave, Good vs. Evil, Causal vs. Synchronous, Conservative vs. Liberal, etc. The reasons why people cannot just accept that these things can be combined is because the definitions we hold of them don’t allow them to be put back together. The definitions were what divided them in the first place.

The majority of human beings do have the flaw of polarized, or binary, thinking and it gets us into trouble frequently with a lot of the things that you've mentioned. The real question is, is binary thinking bred into the human animal, or is it a product of 300+ years of socialization with an intent towards reductionism? I personally think it's a little of both. Evolutionarily speaking, being able to quickly determine whether something is good or bad and not wiffling on whether its a maybe is very important to the survival of an animal that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't have much going for it. Further, the scientific method reinforces binary thinking, although quantum physics is starting to at least allow for context. But even so, maybe not all people can accept a middle ground or shades of grey or whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean that not all can't.

Quote:

Here’s why it’s flawed: the subconscious exists. Your mental space can be infringed upon by anything that can be found coming out of the subconscious. Someone else’s anger can override your mental space and trick you into thinking it is your own.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Can you explain more? As I see it, you don't have to go to the subconscious to be influenced by others' words or emotions.