Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Materialism

 (Read 14462 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #30 - June 25, 2011, 04:13 PM

    Yes, wave-particle duality is very counter-intuitive. Like quantum theory. But then we still can't even explain how a bicycle works. So 'getting your head round it' seems to be out of the question. Humans abstract - we see patterns, look for them even, in a maelstrom of information. Science is those abstractions - a load of generalisations. It isn't, as far as I'm concerned, reality. The wave model and the particle model are abstractions of the same reality. Like, imo, materialism and idealism. We tie ourselves in knots because we conflict our abstractions against one another. I don't think there's any sense is being a materialist or an idealist (or believing matter is either made only of particles or only of waves). Of course we need to understand the world and, being human, we can only do so with our abstractions, but we must remember that the truth is ever-more nuanced. I think fickleness is the quickest path to that truth. So I tend to flit between materialistic and idealistic view points. (Well it's either that or the fact I barely have a clue what either of them are.  whistling2)

    good post, btw is an idealist the opposite of a materialist?  But you could argue that equations by their very nature are not generalisations. Or it might be that science has just got somethings wrong.

    But if I dont get my head round this wave-particle problem shown in the video, then I might agree with you more.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #31 - June 25, 2011, 04:14 PM


    she's gorgeous

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #32 - June 25, 2011, 04:16 PM

    i stumbled upon it by accident, it's only available from the bbc website and not on tv, i think

    you got any thoughts on the question of photons picking & choosing whether they are waves or not?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #33 - June 25, 2011, 04:51 PM

    Edit: Omg, again! Fack you z10!


    LOL
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #34 - June 25, 2011, 04:54 PM

    *suddenly wonders why he's on a thread about materialism when there are girls out there*


    It's that chick in the meme. She's fine.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #35 - June 25, 2011, 08:15 PM

    good post, btw is an idealist the opposite of a materialist?  But you could argue that equations by their very nature are not generalisations. Or it might be that science has just got somethings wrong.

    But if I dont get my head round this wave-particle problem shown in the video, then I might agree with you more.

    Actually, scratch that - I can see the flaw in my logic

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #36 - June 25, 2011, 09:42 PM

    good post, btw is an idealist the opposite of a materialist?  But you could argue that equations by their very nature are not generalisations. Or it might be that science has just got somethings wrong.

    But if I dont get my head round this wave-particle problem shown in the video, then I might agree with you more.


    idealism is not necessarily the opposite of materialism. Only if you have a materialism that says matter has no experiential qualities will you be holding the exact opposite thesis of idealism (which postulates that matter is only a form of experience).

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #37 - June 25, 2011, 10:37 PM

    I think idealism is the ideology of people who don't have material yet... Cheesy

    Religion is organized superstition
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #38 - June 26, 2011, 12:34 AM

    idealism is not necessarily the opposite of materialism. Only if you have a materialism that says matter has no experiential qualities will you be holding the exact opposite thesis of idealism (which postulates that matter is only a form of experience).

    where do you fall on the materialist-idealist scale?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #39 - June 26, 2011, 12:43 AM

    I would tentatively agree with Prince above. So far as can be rationally and metaphysically known, I think panpsychism is the best thesis about the fundamental substance of the universe.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #40 - June 26, 2011, 01:15 AM

    I think I kind of get it. The problem is there's no concrete definition for the fundamental unit of things that exist, defined as matter and assuming that there is unscientific. The real nature of existence might turn out not to built from these building blocks. Am I on the right wavelength here?



    Yes, I think this is generally what I am saying. Smiley

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #41 - June 26, 2011, 01:48 AM

    Cheers I'd be keen to hear any other simple arguments against materialism you can provide.


    Edit: Would you say consciousness can be explained solely by material interactions. I've held this view for quite a while, that our brains are the sole cause consciousness and are like (Very complex) machines manufactured by evolution.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #42 - June 27, 2011, 12:42 AM


    Would you say consciousness can be explained solely by material interactions.


    For a start, you've ran into the same problem that was just discussed. What constitutes material interactions?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #43 - June 27, 2011, 12:43 AM

    Cells. Neurons.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #44 - June 27, 2011, 03:07 AM

    What about Naturalism? Can't spot difference between the two, but Naturalism sounds better to me grin12
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #45 - June 27, 2011, 03:14 AM

    Everyone is missing the point about materialism. It's a perfect philosophy as it pertains to religion vs atheism debate. All the shit that gods/ghosts/angels/MaB's great grandmother were supposed to influence (rain, earthquakes, hemorrhoids/hay fever, etc.) can be shown to result from something material (what we can observe and measure). Who the fuck cares about neutrinos and photons and black holes - my ignorance of them has no effect on my everyday life; are they even in the Injeel or other suhuf?

    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #46 - June 27, 2011, 07:29 AM

    Yes, ^ accepting materialism is often the result of rebellion from religion, but then such religion is child's fodder. There is little merit in climbing just the one rung of the ladder to truth.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #47 - June 27, 2011, 07:04 PM




    Edit: Would you say consciousness can be explained solely by material interactions. I've held this view for quite a while, that our brains are the sole cause consciousness and are like (Very complex) machines manufactured by evolution.


    I just made this post on a different thread, I think it raises certain key difficulties with a materialist conception of consciousness:

    I would hesitate to say that all of the mind can be explained in the purely physical terms of the brain. For instance, let us consider the colour red. The physical theory states that red is an electromagnetic wave of a certain wavelength and that the light enters the retina, at which point, an electro-chemical signal is sent from the back of the eye to the brain along a neuron cell. The brain then decodes the image and presents it for us, in our immediate consciousness, with all the vibrancy and quality of a colour.
    Now, there is a famous thought experiment about this very example. Imagine a person that has always lived within a certain room. In this room, she has never seen the colour red, never had the sensation of the quality of red. However, the above physical facts about electromagnetic waves, wavelengths, neurons and brain activity are all known by her in full. She knows absolutely everything about the colour red that can be known through the cutting edge of physical knowledge. However, if we were to take her outside of the room and she was to actually see the colour red for the first ever time - do you think she gains additional knowledge?
    I would contend that she dos. I would contend that there is a further fact in the actual experiencing of the colour red that cannot be known through the physical facts. i would contend that while this person knew everything about the physical facts, she could not have known the sensation of red without actually experiencing it.
    Thus, one can conclude that even having complete knowledge of the physical workings of the brain is incomplete if one wants to know what an actual experience feels like.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #48 - June 27, 2011, 07:22 PM

    Thus, one can conclude that even having complete knowledge of the physical workings of the brain is incomplete if one wants to know what an actual experience feels like.

    the brain doesnt have experiences, it only interprets them.  Its the sum total of our senses+brain=experience.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #49 - June 27, 2011, 07:24 PM

    the brain doesnt have experiences, it only interprets them.  Its the sum total of our senses+brain=experience.


    My point is that even the sense of sight, when discussed in purely physical terms of waves of light and neuron activity is insufficient in explaining the quality of experiencing colour.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #50 - June 28, 2011, 07:16 PM

    I just made this post on a different thread, I think it raises certain key difficulties with a materialist conception of consciousness:

    I would hesitate to say that all of the mind can be explained in the purely physical terms of the brain. For instance, let us consider the colour red. The physical theory states that red is an electromagnetic wave of a certain wavelength and that the light enters the retina, at which point, an electro-chemical signal is sent from the back of the eye to the brain along a neuron cell. The brain then decodes the image and presents it for us, in our immediate consciousness, with all the vibrancy and quality of a colour.
    Now, there is a famous thought experiment about this very example. Imagine a person that has always lived within a certain room. In this room, she has never seen the colour red, never had the sensation of the quality of red. However, the above physical facts about electromagnetic waves, wavelengths, neurons and brain activity are all known by her in full. She knows absolutely everything about the colour red that can be known through the cutting edge of physical knowledge. However, if we were to take her outside of the room and she was to actually see the colour red for the first ever time - do you think she gains additional knowledge?
    I would contend that she dos. I would contend that there is a further fact in the actual experiencing of the colour red that cannot be known through the physical facts. i would contend that while this person knew everything about the physical facts, she could not have known the sensation of red without actually experiencing it.
    Thus, one can conclude that even having complete knowledge of the physical workings of the brain is incomplete if one wants to know what an actual experience feels like.

    I'm having a think about this. Are you trying to say that the person did not fully understand red until he/she saw red?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #51 - June 28, 2011, 07:25 PM

    I'm trying to say that the person cannot know the experience of red until experiencing red. Knowing the physical facts cannot substitute for the experience.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #52 - June 28, 2011, 07:33 PM

    Do you think we will eventually be able to recreate that experience so that artificial intelligence can experience it in the same way using material components?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #53 - June 28, 2011, 07:44 PM

    I'm not sure. It's not the material components that is the problem really. After all, we are also made of 'material' components if all you mean by material is real substance. What is the problem is that our understanding of the stuff of reality is limited to an objectifying, quantifying and causal-centric basis. It is difficult to see how experience can be explained when we are using the tools of quantity and objectivity to explain quality and subjectivity.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #54 - June 28, 2011, 07:54 PM

    I'm struggling with your colour example though. Has the person in the room simply had red described to her? If so, why does this rule out the idea that seeing the actual colour red is still a functional, material encounter, registered with base physical senses and interpreted with simple biological algorithm?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #55 - June 28, 2011, 08:00 PM

    I'm not sure. It's not the material components that is the problem really. After all, we are also made of 'material' components if all you mean by material is real substance. What is the problem is that our understanding of the stuff of reality is limited to an objectifying, quantifying and causal-centric basis. It is difficult to see how experience can be explained when we are using the tools of quantity and objectivity to explain quality and subjectivity.


    All this philosophy rhetoric won't be coming out of you, when you are full to the brim of your skull with booze. What you would be saying then would be what every other drunk man would say, incoherent babble consisting mainly of mispronounced words and incomplete broken sentences about the things that have seated deeply in your mind and affected most of your thought. Your preoccupations, your regrets, your fond memories, your desires and some other significant stuff which you would reveal in a shameful manner.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #56 - June 28, 2011, 08:04 PM

    I'm struggling with your colour example though. Has the person in the room simply had red described to her? If so, why does this rule out the idea that seeing the actual colour red is still a functional, material encounter, registered with base physical senses and interpreted with simple biological algorithm?


    I think the problem stems from the idea that saying:

    1. Experiencing the sensation of red

    and

    2. Having a certain of wavelength of light hit your eye resulting in an electro-chemical message to your brain to be decoded

    are completely identical. However, with the example above, the person only had knowledge of 2 and not 1. I would contend that when she gained knowledge of 1, it wasn't the same as 2 but it was a further fact because the description in 2, while all correct, does not include the actual experienced sensation of red.

    To take another example, imagine there is a colour you have never seen before. Would you be able to know what looking at that colour feels like if I just told you that it's a particular wave of a particular wavelength?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #57 - June 28, 2011, 08:10 PM

    All this philosophy rhetoric won't be coming out of you, when you are full to the brim of your skull with booze. What you would be saying then would be what every other drunk man would say, incoherent babble consistently mainly of mispronounced words and incomplete broken sentences about the things that have seated deeply in your mind and affected most of your thought. Your preoccupations, your regrets, your fond memories, your desires and some other significant stuff which you would reveal in a shameful manner.


    logical mind, why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #58 - June 28, 2011, 08:22 PM

    I think the problem stems from the idea that saying:

    1. Experiencing the sensation of red

    and

    2. Having a certain of wavelength of light hit your eye resulting in an electro-chemical message to your brain to be decoded

    are completely identical. However, with the example above, the person only had knowledge of 2 and not 1. I would contend that when she gained knowledge of 1, it wasn't the same as 2 but it was a further fact because the description in 2, while all correct, does not include the actual experienced sensation of red.

    To take another example, imagine there is a colour you have never seen before. Would you be able to know what looking at that colour feels like if I just told you that it's a particular wave of a particular wavelength?


    Until anyone is even capable of completely understanding what EM radiation actually is, I don't see how you can argue one way or the other. :S Wavelength is just one property.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #59 - June 28, 2011, 08:27 PM

    I think the problem stems from the idea that saying:

    1. Experiencing the sensation of red

    and

    2. Having a certain of wavelength of light hit your eye resulting in an electro-chemical message to your brain to be decoded

    are completely identical. However, with the example above, the person only had knowledge of 2 and not 1. I would contend that when she gained knowledge of 1, it wasn't the same as 2 but it was a further fact because the description in 2, while all correct, does not include the actual experienced sensation of red.

    What do you mean by gained knowledge of red? Having a physical encounter of red is... a physical encounter. More physically realised than having red described to you.

    To take another example, imagine there is a colour you have never seen before. Would you be able to know what looking at that colour feels like if I just told you that it's a particular wave of a particular wavelength?

    No. But all manner of physical, material phenomenon can be described. I could describe digestion. If you had never digested, would you know what digesting feels like if I described it to you? Would it make it less of a physically bound occurrence?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »