Case in point is "Theist," author of the blog "The Secularist Critique." A recent post proposes to prove that materialism isn't true, but all we are left with is an extended exercise is how not to try and use philosophy. Let's skip right to the meat of the matter, where Theist states his or her conclusions:
1. Empiricism is wrong. If by 'empiricism' is meant that all experience is sense experience or the memory of sense impressions, than it is false because it fails to take into account reflective experience.
Yeah, you can prove certain ideas wrong if you make up new definitions for them. Theist has no idea what empiricism is, apparently. In reality, empiricism is the epistemological theory that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience. There are in fact many different types of empiricism, so it isn't possible to discuss the topic very far in general language. We can, however, be pretty sure that Theist doesn't adhere to empiricism - it would be a rare theist who doesn't adhere to rationalism, the epistemological theory which argues that knowledge can be obtained by means other than sense experience.
Regardless of whether Theist is an empiricist or a rationalist, the above critique of empiricism is wrong because it so badly mangles the concept. The text that came before the conclusion purported to show that one can have experience that doesn't rely upon sense: a contrast between writing down a description of a tree in front of you and writing down a description of a tree that you hold in your mind.
Yes, the latter is an "experience" that isn't a "sense experience," but it also isn't an example of "knowledge" that is obtained independent of sense experience. Why? Because there are no ideas of trees in your mind before encountering them in reality. Thus, Theist's thought-experiment fails to show that empiricism (real empiricism, not the nonsense that Theist makes up) is wrong. This, of course, spells trouble for everything else Theist wants to conclude.
2. Materialism is wrong. For materialism states that everything is of the stuff of matter, i.e. like the stuff we sense. But obviously there is a reality, i.e. reflective experience that is not the stuff of sensation, therefore materialism is false.
Ah, the joys of making up things in order to "prove" what we already believe. Yes, materialism is the doctrine that all that exists is composed of or somehow derived from matter - in other words, that there is nothing that is completely independent of matter/energy. Is reflective experience independent of matter? Obviously not. First, reflecting upon the idea of a tree in your mind is dependent upon first having encountered real, material trees. Second, reflective experiences are dependent upon the functioning of the brain - a very material organ with energy coursing through it. The fact that such reflective experiences don't depend upon senses like sight and smell is completely irrelevant to any type of materialism.
3. Science can not, in principle, establish materialism or disprove dualism because science is based on empirical experience. Thus science simply does not deal with forms of experience that are not empirical, i.e. reflective experience.
This "conclusion" is so confused I hardly know where to begin. First, we have a confusion about what materialism entails. Science relies upon methodological naturalism rather than metaphysical naturalism - this means that it assumes that everything is "natural" (and material) because that's the only way it can operate; it does not, however, purport to demonstrate that it is "true" in a metaphysical sense. Second, science can "deal with" reflect experiences because those experiences still occur within the realm of the material - i.e., the brain.
4. Science knows nothing about the person, but only about person's bodies. Only philosophy through reflective experience can understand the nature of the person.
This "conclusion" assumes the truth of dualism and that there is a difference between the "person" and a person's body - i.e., their physical presence. This "conclusion," then, is just an example of the fallacy of Begging the Question.
5. Terms such as 'immaterial', 'soul', 'spirit', 'supernatural', are at least partially based on concrete human experience, i.e. reflective experience and the philosophical knowledge of the person. Just as 'matter' is based on sense experience, 'immaterial' is based on consciousness and reflective experience.
Sure, reflective experiences are very real - but does that allow us to conclude that they are "immaterial"? Of course not - we already saw above that Theist doesn't understand either materialism or empiricism. Once we sweep the false definitions away, we just aren't left with anything useful here. There is no evidence of any experience with anything "immaterial" - whether we call it souls or spirits or the supernatural.
6. The 'view' that reality consists of at least a dualism and is richer and more sophisticated than being comprised simply of matter is natural, reasonable, and rooted in concrete experience and facts.
Natural? I thought we were talking about the supernatural? At any rate, the belief in dualism is based upon people's experiences. Are the interpretations of those experiences which lead to dualism reasonable? Not that I can tell - and Theist certainly doesn't provide any basis for thinking so. It certainly isn't a "sophisticated" view when you keep misdefining basic philosophical theories which have been around for centuries, giving the impression that you simply don't know enough to be writing on this subject.
Is there evidence that the "mind" is a function of matter? Of course there is - abundant evidence from medicine and science. Absolutely every bit of evidence we have about the mind points to the conclusion that who we are as people is dependent upon our memories and personalities. Absolutely ever bit of evidence we have about our brains points to the conclusion that our memories and personalities are dependent upon our physical brains. There is no scientific evidence that points to dualism. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
But do you find Theist addressing any of the scientific evidence that does exist? Do you, for example, see any discussion about how mystical and religious experiences can be induced physically? Nope. I wonder why?
Read More:
I agree that the blogger misunderstood materialism/empiricism, but they are both still self defeating and useless philosophies. This was a joke.
Feel free to show how, if you can.
First, though, you’ll have to get over the fact that neither are actual philosophies (like Nihilism and Existentialism) in the first place.
You claim that there is no scientific evidence that points to dualism, but this is just not true. There’s *reams* of it. Even the evidence that materialists cling to “prove” their theory can actually be re-interpreted to support a dualist position. I find it amazing that two people can look at exactly the same data but draw vastly different conclusions. You do point out a lot of flaws in Theist’s argument, but cannot actually back up your POV, either. Saying there’s “zilch” evidence for dualism is just ignoring data to support your position. There’s even a word for it: confirmation bias.
Then you should be able to cite some of it. The fact that you don’t suggests strongly that there isn’t any and you know it, but hope that no one will call you on it.
First of all, there indeed are several very powerful
arguments arguments against physicalism. To succinctly summarize a few:
1. Eliminative Materialism (EM) is self-refuting. In order for a physicalist to argue that EM is the correct theory of consciousness which should be believed because it is true; she must first presuppose the existence of dualist concepts such as truth and belief. Furthermore, as C.S Lewis pointed out: if your beliefs are nothing
more than the random fluctuations of chemicals, neurons, and stimuli; why should you believe them?
2. The existence of Qualia.
EM is not even remotely able to account for the incessant experience of qualia, ie., subjective experience, “what things are like”, that is the fundamental core of human existence. As Allen Watts put it:
“Trying to understand the nature of consciousness is like trying to bite your own teeth”.
See Mary’s Room.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge
3. Knowledge of other minds.
Not only do we have innate knowledge of our own Qualia but we can also instinctively know “What it is like” to be someone else.
4. Innate knowledge of morality.
It has always struck me as comicly absurd how EM theorists fault religion with sub-par morality, when they themselves have only atoms for moral guidance.
5. The unity of consciousness.
How do 100,000,000,000 nuerons, themselves no more sentient than grains of sand, constitute an indivisble ego or “thinking self” that is constantly and pervasively aware.
6. Knowledge of the transcendent.
Furthermore why is this ad hoc assemblage of neurons, atoms, and chemicals able to recognize the beauty in a rainbow or a sunset? Why is it able to contemplate eternity and timelessness? Why is it able to
master physics and calculus and languages with hundreds of thousands of words and learn intuitively through qualia what each of those words “are like”?
So I have to disagree with you, Austin. Far from property dualism being some dewey-eyed fiction propogated by the gullible to comfort themselves in a hostile world, it is a basic premise of reality that must be ceded by even the most hardened proponent of EM in order for any coherent basis of reality to be
accepted.
1. Truth is simply what is. By definition, what is material is truth, what is immaterial is false. It’s that simple. No need to posit external entities. Furthermore, why should I trust my beliefs if they’re only neurons firing? Why shouldn’t I? These neurons have over millions of years evolved to be the best possible machines to discern what is from what isn’t. They’re the best thing we have. It’s not like we have a better choice.
2. Subjective experience is nothing more than the incomplete apprehension of the objective material reality. Why are you impressed by an imperfect reflection?
3. Knowledge of other minds is not innate. It is learned. Sociopaths never learn empathy.
4. There is nothing surprising about the innate knowledge of morality since morality is, generally speaking, only the expression of the arbitrary human instinctual drives towards socialization. If we were praying mantises, you’d be fascinated about how we instinctively know about the moral imperative of eating our mate after copulation. But since we’re humans you’re waxing poetic about the fact that we instinctively know that we’re a social species.
5. Argument from incredulity.
6. Ask a blind mole about its ability to recognize the transcendant beauty of a rainbow. There are no transcendant truths. You’re positing that your internal subjective fascination exists independant of your own mind.
Dualism is a failed philosophy. What is the dualist mechanism by which injury to the brain can transform a person into an entirely different person? (Like my friend, who is one of maybe two or three known transgendered persons in the world who became a woman because of an accident well into adulthood when most transgendered folks are trans from birth.)
Substance dualism makes people stupid.
i’l take a few of these:
3. Knowledge of other minds.
Nope. We can imagine other minds, but we don’t actually know any other minds actually exist. Which suggests i’m talking to myself.
4. Innate knowledge of morality.
No such thing. Morality comes from society and personal experience.
5. The unity of consciousness.
Says who? The computer i’m using to type this to you can only add… and yet i can use it to send messages to you. It can also play movies and video games. It’s made of the same transitors as were used in the first hand held calculators and digital wrist watches. It’s called processing power and programming. More power + more and better code = smarter.
6. Knowledge of the transcendent.
There’s no magic there either. Humans are pattern recognition machines. We see symmetry not because symmetry is divine, but because it is useful to recognize it. Our brains give us a lil warm fuzzy when we see things with patterns and symmetry.
BlackBoc, there is nothing in your argument that cannot be explained by natural selection and an infinite span of time for it to occur.
My apologies, BlackBloc, my post was directed to Raymond James.
I merely find it ironic that either side has the audacity to claim any sort of scientific proof. I can look at the same report of NDE and get two completely different viewpoints from it. The problem with death is it is one way: you can’t come back and scientifically say “Yep, I met God” or ” Hey we better get started on curing death cause there’s nothing over there.” Science as far as we know it today has no way of dealing with this question. In fact, it would all be better when we all learn that all of us, including you materialists, have no way to prove our own arguments, much less disprove someone else’s argument, and learn to stop arguing pointless philosophical arguments to one another and realize that even science with its conclusive nature is often wrong because we don’t have the whole picture. If you put your faith in science, so be it. If it’s in religion, OK. Frankly, I think its going to be a mix of both in the end that brings us to a true understanding of ourselves and the universe. So stop arguing and start getting your heads out of your asses.
Why do you say that?
In fact we do, at least to the extent that science is ever able to prove anything. It’s quite simple: all the evidence we have and all the new evidence we acquire point to just one conclusion, namely that the mind depends upon the existence of the physical brain. Absolutely no scientific evidence points in any other direction or suggests that the materialist explanation of the mind might be wrong.
That’s as much proof as is required for accepting a conclusion in any other area of science, which suggests that a refusal to accept the conclusion here isn’t based on any concern with proof or evidence. It is, instead, much more likely a personal resistance to the where that conclusion is leading: that we are material creatures.
That you really don’t understand what science is is proven quite nicely by your attempt to claim that there is some sort of equivalence between “faith in science” and “faith in religion.” The sheer and complete absurdity of this position is revealed if we insert some real substance to your vacuous statement: “if you put your faith in modern heart surgery, so be it; if you put your faith in faith healing and prayer, OK.” Are those equivalent? No. Is one clearly and demonstrably superior? Yes. Is the first even really a “faith” in the same way that the second sense is? Of course no.
Only people who recognize that their religious faith is useless next to science try to pretend that others have “faith” in science like they have faith in their religion.
i have no faith in science. Air foils lift planes into the air with or without my belief in them. i can even reject the notion of lift with all my heart and the wings of the plane will still lift me into the air. i do not believe in evolution or gravity. i accept them as the best description of observed phenomena. Because i am a scientifically minded sort, i will reject evolution if it is disproven, or if otherwise a better theory comes along (even if it contradicts my current thinking). That’s the difference between faith and science. Science cares nothing for feelings or beliefs, it merely reveals what IS. Faith is all about emotion and ignorance. A faithful sort will adhere to a belief DESPITE the evidence against it.
When the first plane lifted off the ground at Kittyhawk, there was no faith involved. That experiment would have the same results if done and witnessed by people who believed it couldn’t work.
Austin, do you want me to PROVE to you that materialism is wrong? And that matter – the world that we apprehend through our senses is not the ultimate reality? And how atheist philopsophers, in particular bertrand russell, ge moore etc have lied and cheated to try to cover this fact up? If I was to do this, would this shake your atheism?
Give it your best shot.
I won’t hold my breath.
What are you waiting for?
For that, you’d have to demonstrate that some god or gods exist.
Ok, I will, but first, will you acknowledge that an awful lot of the world view of the atheist in general relies very heavily upon materialism. For instance, if I disprove materialism, or at least make you agree that materialism is unlikely, and that there are far more plausible metaphysical worldviews, then this destroys many of the beliefs of the atheist. The idea of abiogenesis is entirely dependent on a materialist worldview, so also is the dogmatic neo-darwinism of the average atheist. If materialism is disproved then we would still have the various empirical facts, but we would have to agree that all there is to life isn’t just a slow process of random genetic mutation followed by natural selection on that mutation – that although that may be some factor, there must be more going on than just that, things which are outside the jurisdiction of scientific investigation (science dealing solely with the physical?
There is no “the world view of the atheist.” There is no single worldview which all atheists have in common.
I think there is a common worldview of most atheists, and materialism is probably the defining feature.
Would you agree that if I was to make you admit that you materialism is wrong, or probably wrong, would you then admit that things of a religious/spiritual/mystical nature become not only possible, but actually probable?
‘Theist has no idea what empiricism is, apparently. In reality, empiricism is the epistemological theory that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience. There are in fact many different types of empiricism, so it isn’t possible to discuss the topic very far in general language. We can, however, be pretty sure that Theist doesn’t adhere to empiricism – it would be a rare theist who doesn’t adhere to rationalism, the epistemological theory which argues that knowledge can be obtained by means other than sense experience. ‘
Well obviously you don’t know what an empiricist or a rationalist is either. You are right that most modern atheists tend to be empiricists, and theists rationalists, but it is wrong to say ‘it would be a rare theist who isn’t a rationalist’. George berekley was one of the foremost early empiricists, and he also happened to be an anglican bishop, John Locke also believed in god, add that to all the french philosophes many of whom were theists, and almost all empiricists. You say rationalism is the position which argues that knowledge can be gained by ‘means other than sense experience’. Err no, rationalism is the position which (suprisingly because it is called rationalism) argues that knowledge of the world can be gained by the use of reason alone. Neither position is one which rules out, or even points to any religious or non religious position. The reason that most modern atheists are empiricists is because atheists tend to subscribe to the metaphysical position which in philosophy is called ‘naiive realism’ (look it up).
Yes, physical changes in the brain produce observable changes in cognitive function, but this is by no means proof that the brain produces consciousness.
For example, take the logical opposite of your assumption. Rather than produce consciousness, the brain might limit consciousness and act as a sort of reducing valve – controlling what thoughts to block and what thoughts to allow in.
Is measurable electrical activity in the brain the thought itself, or is it simply the measure of the brain’s response to the thought?
When people smoke small quantities of DMT, they often ‘come back down’ with amazingly vivid experiences. When people smoke larger quantities of DMT, they often remember nothing at all – despite the fact that all observable evidence shows they’re having the most intense experiences. The brain blocks the experience.
So then, what about when a boxer gets knocked out in the ring. The boxer wakes up several minutes later with no memory between the time they were hit and the time they woke up – were they unconscious?
Even if the boxer claims to have been unconscious, we have no way of knowing if they were actually unconscious, or if they were conscious and simply do not remember the experience.
When one has amnesia following head trauma, are their memories ‘physically’ damaged, or is the brain’s ability to open itself to the non-physical damaged?
To this day materialists can’t explain how dead, inanimate matter can possibly give rise to consciousness, nor even where or how memories are stored in the brain. Since they cannot explain consciousness, they simply say it must emerge ‘somehow’ from the combination of all of the processes of the brain. It’s a cop-out.
This is like saying that physical changes in the body do not prove that a person has died, or that physical changes in the atmosphere do not produce weather.
That’s a common argument to make; the problem is, there is no evidence to support it. What’s more, apologists for this view are unable to offer any sorts of tests for it, which eliminates it from any sort of serious or scientific explanation.
You contradict yourself – you say that there is demonstrable, physical evidence of experience in the brain then you say that the brain “blocks” the experience. You seem unable to recognize that you already gave an physical explanation for what’s going on: memory of the experience simply isn’t retained. This is hardly a mystery since it’s know that the brain has activity during sleep in the form of dreams, but we don’t remember most of them. A failure to remember something is not in anyway “evidence” for non-material consciousness.
Uh, that’s what “knocked out” means.
Argument from Ignorance, which is especially ironic given the total lack of explanation forthcoming from those who keep trying to make up non-material sources of consciousness.
No, those experiments simply demonstrate the validity of Quantum Mechanics.
That you think particles are making “choices” demonstrates behind a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither entanglement nor non-locality violate contradict materialism.
Oh yeah, and the non-physical (information) has been proven to effect the physical. The quantum eraser experiments have showed this.
Particles can choose the way they behaved in the past based on the existence of FUTURE EVIDENCE. Evidence – not a physical interaction, just information. How does that fit in with your materialism?
Sounds like a bunch of neo-positivist drivel.
Criteria for factual meaningfulness:
1). Empirical Statements
2). Analytic Statements (tautologies)
Problem:
The criteria for factual meaningfulness is itself factually meaningless because it cannot be empirically verified nor is it a logical tautology.
History Lesson:
Most of the founding fathers of Positivism abandoned or altered their views on linguistic philosophy long before you or I were born. Wittgenstein & Godel drove stakes through the heart of the movement before the best part of you ran down the crack of your mama’s ass. Get over it ya big faker;-)
The Goal of Principia Mathematica – Russell & Whitehead = FAIL
Demolished by “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems”
Logical Positivism, Logical Empiricism, Logical Atomism = FAIL
Demolished by “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems”
Slapped around some more by Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations.”
Modern Science = Analytic Philosophy (which is basically what remains of the positivist movement) + a dozen or so other controlling and unproven assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics that are grounded in social convention. Why social convention? Because they cannot be established via the very methods that scientist use to claim knowledge of the “material universe” – without engaging in circularity and /or question begging. We can think Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems for that as well.
Hume – demolished empiricism a few hundred years ago and the Positivist Movement reconfirmed it. Get over it!
You whole argument is like a stale fart in an elevator. You don’t even have the decency to acknowledge that religious faith is still possible on even a completely materialist view – think Sr. Isaac Newton. You don’t even have the decency to acknowledge that you live by faith in dosens of ideas that you cannot prove. What a faker!
Jeeze!
Yet you can’t identify anything as such.
Irrelevant to anything above.
Feel free to make an argument for that, if you can.
Yet you can’t actually identify any specific errors in it. All you can do is make vague claims that you don’t bother to connect to any of the issues at hand.
It does.
Oh, wait, I get it – you mean that pipes aren’t the original source of water. OK.
But you don’t provide any evidence that brains aren’t the original source of consciousness. You just assume that there is an analogy there without investing any time or effort into the work necessary to demonstrate that there is.
Kind of like how you above assume that all your comments are relevant without investing any time or effort necessary to demonstrate that they are.
And that’s why nothing you write is worth a second glance.
Water comes from pipes.
How do we know this?
If we break pipes we get no water, therefore water comes from pipes!
Consciousness comes from brains.
How do we know this?
If we destroy someones brain guess what…no consciousness! Therefore it must be true that consciousness comes from brains.
Know what else?
Stock prices are determined by cow farts!
Seriously…look it up if you don’t believe me LMAO!
Wow! What bullshit! A. N. Other and some other folks will study for years and jump through all sorts of hoops to try to somehow assign their own warped “worldview” to atheists, but they just don’t get it. THERE IS NO “ATHEIST WORLDVIEW”. Atheists DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA!!!
Believers are so culture-centric, so immersed in their own fantasy world, that they think everyone else is, too. Religious fundamentalists are the ones that have a “worldview”. Fundamentalists are the ones with an agenda. Fundamentalists are the ones trying to take over the world and force everyone to think just like they do. Please—stop trying to tell us atheists what we “believe”. We don’t believe ANYTHING, OK? We don’t have a hidden, “communist agenda” to install homosexuals in the White House, OK? We’re just normal people who are smart enough to know that no gods exist. We’re not trying to disprove the existence of your god, or somehow “take your faith”. If you want to believe, that’s your business. However, you will never make us believe in your god(s). In fact, in the United States of America, it is illegal for you to do that. So, instead of telling people like me that we need to move to Russia because we’re atheists, it is people like you who are creating tension in the USA and need to comply with the law, or get the hell out.
Materialism is wrong. The idea that reality is as simple as whatwe see, hear, smell, etc is wrong. With the materialist
account of reality there is no consideration for anomalous
phenomenon such as the observer effect in quantum theory.
Or the compelling evidence of near death experiences.
Or the scientific studies of dimethyltryptamine and it’s ability
to propel it’s users into another dimension.
Materialism runs parallel to inauthentic science, science which
seeks to remain at status quo.
Reality is not as simple as what we experience around us in
our every day lives.
Then you should be able to demonstrate how.
FYI, quantum theory is a materialist scientific explanation.
Present some of it.
Feel free to provide your evidence.
Then do explain what you think “authentic” science is. With examples.
But some people are exceedingly simple, aren’t they?