Proud to be a [Philosophical] Materialist

What does your philosophy have to say about the beginning of time? Beginning of matter? Where does it say matter, material came from in the first place?

Its interesting to me that the area I see materialism breaking down totally is when it turns to explaining the very existence of itself.

In fact, when I ask about it, when I take your use your rules and logic and take it places you don't want it to go, you tell me to stop talking about it!

Must debate it according to the arena that you have pre-set rules for. If the question falls outside your formulaic answer-set, the question is not discussable.

Nice.

Now what group does that remind me of?

Thats okay, though. I understand.
Most of our universe is like that.

What can explain its own existence? Surely not humans. Dogs? Cats? The Sun? Moon? Stars?

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

But can chemicals account for #2-Love also?

Yes.

Quote:

Like the love you have for your mother or something...thats all chemicals?

Yes.

Quote:

Could both 1 & 2 just be caused by chemicals?

Yes.

Quote:

Are we simply test tubes full of chemicals?

Yes.

Well, actually no. We're more similar to circuitry actually. But still, I think I answered the question you were actually asking...

Quote:

That seems somehow kind of...sad

You know, one of the best ways to spot reality is to look for the most depressing point of view. That may just be the cynic in me, but I tend to find the most realistic viewpoints are always sadder than the pleasant stories we make up to fool ourselves.

I mean, think about how sad it is for children to learn the easter bunny doesn't exist.

0 Replies

watchmakers guidedog wrote:

You know, one of the best ways to spot reality is to look for the most depressing point of view. That may just be the cynic in me, but I tend to find the most realistic viewpoints are always sadder than the pleasant stories we make up to fool ourselves.

That is one point of view.

Actually, I think one of the best takes we have on a certain segment is reality is science.

Scientifically, the universe doesn't care if you live or you die. The universe does not appear to care what happens to you.

I don't find any of that depressing.

How could it be depressing, if the depression is all just also chemicals and particular arrangements of atoms, just as you are saying love is above? What reason is there to push toward depression instead of tending towards optimism & happiness?

Depression is no more true or real than happiness. Depression and negativity is just an unpleasant story we make up to fool ourselves.

Depression is no more real or true than happiness.

I've been there, done that.

Its easy to take the negative view...true. But its just more stories.

We are all caught in existence, this place where bodies age and get sick and die. Desire. 4 Noble Truths and 8 fold Path.

No more reason to get depressed over death and suffering than to get happy over seeing someone that supposedly "loves" you.

They are equally nice/not so nice stories.

Some even argue that the universe appears to "care" a tiny bit if you live. Well, the earth doesn't just suddenly tilt too far and cause an ice age that snuffs us all out in a year or something. But of course that is all debatable.

What I will stand by though:
Reality is neither depressing or particularly undepressing.

That is how you choose to view it.

Or how you decide to arrange the atoms or brain states in your brain to relate to this place we find ourselves.

Reality is not depressing.

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

What does your philosophy have to say about the beginning of time? Beginning of matter? Where does it say matter, material came from in the first place?

Before we explain the origin of the universe, shouldn't we be asking why the universe has to have an origin?

Where is the origin of the line that constitutes a circle?
--

extra medium wrote:

What gives it meaning?

Where does the meaning come from?

I don't understand why some supernatural force must give a concept 'meaning'. Are we not capable of lending meaning to events or ideas? I would say it means something, because we say it does. Who's going to tell us we're wrong?

--

extra medium wrote:

How could it be depressing, if the depression is all just also chemicals and particular arrangements of atoms, just as you are saying love is above? What reason is there to push toward depression instead of tending towards optimism & happiness?

Just because the arrangement of atoms determines whether we are 'depressed' or 'happy,' how does this make it any less real? Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the word 'depressed' or 'happy' describes a certain emergent property resulting from a particular configuration of atoms?

If you feel 'depressed' are you saying that it is not a result of a certain configuration of atoms? What else is doing it?

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

I don't understand why some supernatural force must give a concept 'meaning'. Are we not capable of lending meaning to events or ideas? I would say it means something, because we say it does. Who's going to tell us we're wrong?

Didn't say you were wrong. Just asking you to examine what you are stating.

If you are just a collection of atoms, I don't see why you have any more meaning than a rock? What separates you from a rock? What is that? You think you have some special atoms or something? Why?

Who is the "we" and the "I" the proponents of this belief keep talking about?

What do you mean when you say "I"?

The atoms and molecules?

What if you get your leg cut off and put it on Table 1.
The rest of your body is on Table 2.

Where are you? Table 2?

Hmmm...Agrote seems to say that your brain is you?

If someone removes your brain and puts your body on Table 1,
and puts your brain on Table 2,

I guess you are Table 2? You are the brain and all its experiences, sitting on that table?

***

I'm just trying to figure out what you guys mean be "I" and "We."

I don't see any answer for that supplied here.

Is it atoms? A brain?

What are You?

A collection of atoms and experiences?

Who is the Experiencer? Who is the Realizer of all this you are telling me about?

Atoms?

Where are those atoms?

Didn't get an answer for this. Just asked not to talk about it.

Now who does that remind me of?

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

fredjones wrote:
I don't understand why some supernatural force must give a concept 'meaning'. Are we not capable of lending meaning to events or ideas? I would say it means something, because we say it does. Who's going to tell us we're wrong?

Didn't say you were wrong. Just asking you to examine what you are stating.

Well, I should clarify that I was using the collective "we" as in the human race. I wanted to say that quickly. I'll respond to the other points in a second.

I welcome opposition. Without opposing views, this existence would be unbearably dull. Smile

0 Replies

Man, I feel like I'm belaboring the point or something, but I'm really trying to figure out what you guys believe on this, not trying to endlessly debate it.

Here's a question:

Okay--I see that you are saying that YOU can decide what is meaningful, and YOU ascribe meaning to things in your life. And its all components of molecules, etc.

So, I am asking: Who is this YOU? in your mind?

I mean, its like you are creating yourself or something. Which is fine. You have every right to do that. But its like you kind of randomly decide that these atoms over here will be meaningful to you, and those atoms over there will not.

Who or What is this arrangement of brain states that allows you to create this meaning?

I guess I'm asking you to be consistent. If we are all very scientifically explainable brain states, and chemical reactions, how can this mean something?

Its like you want me to look at this chemical reaction in my brain. Lets say dopamine getting released. And it makes me feel good. And then you are also saying that dopamine means something.

Like drugs, or a chemical can be meaningful.

I could take drugs that make me feel great.

And then say that meant something?

What were your words? : Who is there to tell me I'm wrong?

I mean, if you just appeared out of a gas cloud and created yourself from random molecules, and built yourself into a human form, then I'd say yes, you might also be able to create meaning from certain molecules.

But to just show up, and analyze this human body you happen to be in, and then say certain brain states and molecules have meaning, and you don't even know who "YOU" are or WHAT you are...

this seems random or almost insane?

But thats okay.

***
Following your train of thought:

Perhaps you spend time with your friends or loved ones or helping others, and that makes you feel good, and you say its meaningful to you.

Perhaps I just take some drugs, and that makes me feel great, and it releases even stronger feel good chemicals in my brain, and I say its meaningful to me.

Both of the above people ascribe deep meaning to what they are doing.

And the druggie might even feel more meaning from his chemicals than the family person...who is there to tell him he is wrong?

What matters? Nothing matters. Its all just various atoms...

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

fredjones wrote:
I don't understand why some supernatural force must give a concept 'meaning'. Are we not capable of lending meaning to events or ideas? I would say it means something, because we say it does. Who's going to tell us we're wrong?

Didn't say you were wrong. Just asking you to examine what you are stating.

If you are just a collection of atoms, I don't see why you have any more meaning than a rock? What separates you from a rock? What is that? You think you have some special atoms or something? Why?

Who is the "we" and the "I" the proponents of this belief keep talking about?

What do you mean when you say "I"?

The atoms and molecules?

What if you get your leg cut off and put it on Table 1.
The rest of your body is on Table 2.

Where are you? Table 2?

Hmmm...Agrote seems to say that your brain is you?

If someone removes your brain and puts your body on Table 1,
and puts your brain on Table 2,

I guess you are Table 2? You are the brain and all its experiences, sitting on that table?

***

I'm just trying to figure out what you guys mean be "I" and "We."

I don't see any answer for that supplied here.

Is it atoms? A brain?

What are You?

A collection of atoms and experiences?

Who is the Experiencer? Who is the Realizer of all this you are telling me about?

Atoms?

Where are those atoms?

Didn't get an answer for this. Just asked not to talk about it.

Now who does that remind me of?

Well, I did attempt to explain this before. I talked about 'emergent' properties, where a complex system can have different properties than a simple one.

For instance, we know that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Even though the parts of a hydrogen molecule are the same as the parts of a helium molecule, they act differently. How can this be? How can protons in one system act differently than in another? The interaction of the two components result in a higher-order complexity.

Fast forward to the brain. The parts are relatively simple. Atoms of only a few different kinds. When we put those atoms together in a certain way, it becomes so complex that consciousness becomes the emergent property.

Although I might always consider myself to be "me," I am really not a static being. Our atoms are constantly rearranging themselves. The emergent properties, however, remain relatively static. I am conscious despite the fact that I am not physically the same person I was before. "I" in this case is a symbol representing my consciousness.

If you cut off my leg, it does not change the emergent properties of my brain. If you give me a lobotomy, it will change my personality, and others will say that I am a different person. This different person will still have a "me," but something has been lost. The emergent properties of my brain have been altered irrevocably.

If a brain could survive without a body, say if machines were substituted for every organ system, I would say that the brain would tell you it had a "me" inside of it. The emergent properties of the brain and the systems supporting that brain would be intact. The Experiencer, the Realizer, are names for emergent properties of the brain.

Is that a possible explanation? At least now you can't say I didn't try. Wink

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

If a brain could survive without a body, say if machines were substituted for every organ system, I would say that the brain would tell you it had a "me" inside of it. The emergent properties of the brain and the systems supporting that brain would be intact. The Experiencer, the Realizer, are names for emergent properties of the brain.

Okay, thank you.

Thats what I was looking for, I guess.

So "You" are pretty much that brain. Got it.

Whew! Okay, onward!

I still have issues with how a this lump of flesh--a brain--can describe "meaning" to something.

(see my last post above- re: who's to say your brain's idea of "meaning" really means anything? -- I guess thats up to you).

***

Lets look at this: A person is pretty much a brain. A lump of flesh. Okay, I'll grant you brain states, etc.

How can a lump of material possibly ascribe "meaning" to other material, etc?

That just seems so pompous or, like the lump of material is telling itself stories or something?

A lump of material called a brain is telling itself bizarre stories about other materials, and the world and what it thinks has meaning?

Its like we're silly robots of flesh tricking ourself into there being meaning or something?

I guess I have a problem with this part:

Okay, if you are saying Materialism, then go with it.

Everything is Material, including You.

You are simply more Material!

How can you possibly say everything is simply Material, but you are somehow special Material?

You are just Material! Simply Material.

How can you say one Material has more "meaning" or something than another?

Even if you don't agree with me, can you see where I am coming from on this?

What distinguishes you from a rock?

Just because you have this "consciousness"? So what? Those brain states and experiences and atomic arrangements and memories are simply more rock-like Material?

What distinguishes your consciousness and substance and experience from a rock?

Its just a different arrangement of Material.

Its like you're asking me to believe Everything is Simply Material.

Except You. You are Special because You (Brain Material) ascribe Special Meaning to Your Brain Material and The Material your Brain Cells Hold (remember).

But its all Sand of a Rock!

Do you at least see where I am coming from with this?

Doesn't compute to me. Either its All Materialism, or Not. Cant say All is Material, oh, Except Me...Somehow my Atoms that give Me Consciousness are Meaningful...

Why? Its all Equal Material

***

Maybe I'm going on a warped angle with this.

Perhaps you think of us as primarily smart robots full of chemicals, and not much more?

If that is so, I'd say then yeah, your philosophy seems to fit.

But if you are saying "humans can make their special meanings etc etc" then I don't think it fits.

I don't think you can have a pure Materialism and also say "Yes, and this Material here has meaning, but that doesn't blah blah blah."

Doesn't compute in my mind. Missing link. Like your "Meaning" is springing from empty molecules.

So, if you are saying you are basically a meaningless robot in a material universe, I think the philosophy fits nicely.

But if you, as you are just more Material, trying to tell me that You as Material have special ability to put meaning in other Material, I think you have a problem.

Your "Meaning" is rising out of empty Meaningless Molecules and Material. Your Brain. Just more Material.

Your Meaning is coming from nowhere. It leaps from nowhere. Its meaningless. It jumped out of a Gap. Its just a trick of your Material Brain.

Can you see where I am coming from on this?

0 Replies

em:

I can kind of see your argument, but I don't really understand. I am a sapient being due to my composition. A rock cannot be a sapient being, due to its composition. Sapience is what makes humans unique. Sapience is an emergent quality of the brain.

Sapience is what gives us the ability (and the right) to ascribe meaning to things.

Here is an example. Suppose we were to create a robot which was so advanced that it was on par or even exceeded our own cognitive abilities. It was a perfect replica of a human, except that it was made of synthetic materials and metal. This robot could think, reason, make moral judgements, everything that a human could do.

In fact, unless you cut his integument, you would never even know that he wasn't human.

In this highly improbable scenario, don't you think that this robot would be a 'person', just like us? Does the fact that he is made of silicon affect his personness? We would obviously be able to explain how he is made, and what exactly happens when he is thinking, but does that affect his sapience?

My point is that having complete knowledge of his inner circuits would not change his sapience. There is nothing mystical about his "brain," yet he would be just like us.

I set up that thought experiment because I wish to know: would you, in fact, consider this robot to be a 'person' like us? If not, what constitutes 'personhood'?

I think we will agree that a 'person' can ascribe 'meaning' to things. (This is getting cumbersome. Confused

)

0 Replies

fredjones

Quote:

Sapience is an emergent quality of the brain.

What do you mean? That sapience is not entirely the same thing as the brain? Or do you mean that sapience is nothing more that the chemical, electrical events of the brain?

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

What does your philosophy have to say about the beginning of time? Beginning of matter? Where does it say matter, material came from in the first place?[/aquote]

I don't know about that. I think the big bang probably happened - not sure where all the matter came from, maybe it's always existed.

Quote:
Its interesting to me that the area I see materialism breaking down totally is when it turns to explaining the very existence of itself.

In fact, when I ask about it, when I take your use your rules and logic and take it places you don't want it to go, you tell me to stop talking about it!

You misunderstand me. What I meant is that it isn't necessary to talk abotu6 atoms when you can talk about things made of atoms. YOu can say "Love is just atoms moving around" or you can say "Love is a brain-process" - a brain process is atoms moving around. There's just no point blabbering on about atoms - when you're telling someone your arm aches, you don't say, "the atoms that make up my arm are causing a sensation of pain" or anything like that.

0 Replies

The brain is the organ that 'manufactures' sapience.

Sapience is a property that emerges after lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way. A few neurons cannot accomplish the job; you need many. (How many? Answer that and you get a Nobel prize Smile

)

Sapience can be deconstructed all the way down to the chemical level, but I prefer stopping at neurons, since it is more familiar for many.

The basic unit of the brain is the neuron. The basic unit of a neuron is a chemical. The basic unit of a chemical is an atom.

I think this is the train of thought others have postulated. For the sake of this discussion I have gone along with it.

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

The brain is the organ that 'manufactures' sapience.

Sapience is a property that emerges after lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way. A few neurons cannot accomplish the job; you need many. (How many? Answer that and you get a Nobel prize )

Sapience can be deconstructed all the way down to the chemical level, but I prefer stopping at neurons, since it is more familiar for many.

The basic unit of the brain is the neuron. The basic unit of a neuron is a chemical. The basic unit of a chemical is an atom.

I think this is the train of thought others have postulated. For the sake of this discussion I have gone along with it.

Yes, that is what I mean when I was asking extra medium to stop talkign about atoms. We all agree that neurons are made of atoms and nothing more, so we can stop at neurons and decide if consciousness, etc. is or is not constituted by the behaviour of neurons and nothing more.

0 Replies

fredjones

Quote:

Sapience is a property that emerges after lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way. A few neurons cannot accomplish the job; you need many.

Let me see if I understood your point. You mean that when someone claims that the sun turns around the earth, that means that "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way". And when someone claims that the earth moves around the sun that means that "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way".
But that "certain way" is the same? Or it is different? And how can you make the difference between ideas? For example, between materialism and idealism? In the first case "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way" and that way is the right one? What is your criteria to make that distinction between the good and bad "ways neurons get together"?

0 Replies

as i understand it, neurons are like switches, on or off. Like binary. The algorithms that govern the working of computers are similiar. so pack enough switches together and you have intelligence/conscience-ness?

Somehwo I dont think its as simple as that. Computers are powerful but they dont think like we do. But connect all the computers in the world together....and you have www....and that doesnt think either...or does it?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo)

Very good, Steve. I don't deny that there is no thinking without brain activity. But my question is: what criteria do we have to claim that an idea is wrong and another is right, if it is only a matter of neuronal activity? How can a physical and chemical activity be right or wrong?

0 Replies

val wrote:

fredjones

Quote:
Sapience is a property that emerges after lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way. A few neurons cannot accomplish the job; you need many.

Let me see if I understood your point. You mean that when someone claims that the sun turns around the earth, that means that "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way". And when someone claims that the earth moves around the sun that means that "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way".
But that "certain way" is the same? Or it is different? And how can you make the difference between ideas? For example, between materialism and idealism? In the first case "lots and lots of neurons get together in a certain way" and that way is the right one? What is your criteria to make that distinction between the good and bad "ways neurons get together"?

Neurons make up the brain - not the sun or the earth. But in all those cases, matter does get together in a certain way. In a materialistic world, there is matter and there is space. Ideas can be distinguished by their being constituted by different arrangements of different bits of matter in different places in space. So my idea that my mother is not a mongoose is constituted by arrangements of the set of matter A, which is located here in my brain, whereas your idea that I am talking rubbish is constituted by arrangements of the set of matter B in your brain which don't resemble. As to which idea is better, perhaps one of these ideas has come about in response to the true nature of something outside the brain - such as the true physical nature of my mother not beign the true physical nature of a mongoose. Perhaps the other idea has not come about in response to the true nature of things, but in response to some reality that you have imagined (using yoru physical brain), in which I am talkign rubbish. Or soemthing like that. I'm sure we can still have good ideas and bad ideas, even if ideas come about from bits of matter moving around.

0 Replies

who judges what is right or wrong? - The very same physical/chemical activities.

If your activity is not like mine, then you're wrong.
QED.
err..

0 Replies

I just took a pill . . . that makes everything right.

No judge or spectator or false "friend"
can change how I feel
about my
life.

It just is.

Are you?

How do you know?

0 Replies

Proud to be a [Philosophical] Materialist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know