Materialist Hypocrisy

_{Barry Arrington

December 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Many materialists argue out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to consciousness.

On the one hand, they argue that consciousness is the key to dignity and the right to life. See, for example, the arguments of Peter Singer, who argues specifically that there is no ethical problem in killing an unborn baby because the baby at that stage of development is not self-conscious.

But then materialists turn right around and argue that consciousness is ontologically meaningless, asserting that it is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical activity of the brain.

Well, which is it? Is consciousness absolutely crucial, literally a matter of life and death, or is it the essentially meaningless byproduct of chance and necessity?

Comments

There is no contradiction in supposing that consciousness is a key factor in ethics and also that it is the consequence of electro-chemical activity of the brain. Who would you save gets to determine the ethics?tribune7_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank writes: “You can believe that mind is result of the electro-chemical activity of the brain and also think that it is ontologically meaningful.” What an astonishing thing to say. Yes, you can believe mutually exclusive things simultaneously if you are mentally dexterous enough for the psychological gymnastics that requires. But your irrational subjective beliefs do not interest me. Do you have any arguments or evidence to support your views? If not, really, move along.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

>blockquote>Even if it is “just an illusion” if you can’t see how the illusion works does it really matter that it’s “just an illusion”. This rather comfortable question perhaps should be addressed to any of the several dozen million people who have had their lives systematically taken from them in the past century by people who didn't have any reference beyond their illusion.Upright BiPed_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

This may spark things up: The Day I Died - A Closer Look At Near Death Experiences 4/6 http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=9baed5185c8ddfddddb4 Miracle Of The Mind/Brain in Recovering from Hemispherectomy http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ca2a589bd122500a3172bornagain77_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

William
That isn’t inherent meaning. If there is no inherent meaning, then one ends up with moral equivalence and rational justification for anything one wishes to do.
Could you tell me where you get this "inherent meaning" from please? I've always been interested to hear from people when they claim "universal morals" or meaning exist. What are they and where did they come from? It seems to me that no two religious people can agree on the "meaning" or what "morals" should be. It's why there are so many religions and splinter groups. If there really was a "universal moral code" flowing from a deity why are there so many different versions of these so called "universal morals" then? People who claim that without a deity there can be no morals typically cannot agree on what those morals actually are. And it's often the most religious (and so presumably more moral) people who fall the hardest.
If life is just happenstance, animated matter, and consciousness is just the product of material processes, then what’s wrong with simply killing everyone who disagrees with you?
Are you telling me that the only reason you don't kill everyone who disagrees with you is fear of punishment after death? Really?MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Re #12. If desires, ability to suffer, feelings for others don't count as inherent meaning then perhaps you can give me an example of inherent meaning? ThanksMark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Bourne
What inherent meaning exists in a thing we call a brain if all that is produced by that such a mere material organ is nothing but electro-chemical pulses?
Please prove to me there is more to the brain then "electro-chemical pulses". I'm more then happy to look at your scientific evidence, if you have any.
If you’re nothing but a bag of chemicals there is no real meaning - either in your own brain or anyone else’s - no more than a worms brain. Meaning is thus all in your mind. Just an illusion.
And, as I noted, if it is discovered and proven to even your satisfaction that the brain is simply the brain and no more and no less then that (i.e. nothing "non-material" about it) will your life suddenly become meaningless? Even if it is "just an illusion" if you can't see how the illusion works does it really matter that it's "just an illusion". As far as Dr. Jeffery S Schwartz goes
Jeff's breakthrough work in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) provided the hard evidence that the mind can control the brain's chemistry.
As the brain generates/causes/is the mind it's perhaps not surprising. I don't see how this supports your case however. Anything specific you had in mind? He's certanly not proven the "mind" is non-material has he?MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

#10: That isn't inherent meaning. If there is no inherent meaning, then one ends up with moral equivalence and rational justification for anything one wishes to do.William J. Murray_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Berceuse#6
Actually, entire books have been written on this subject.
Book, yes. Peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature, not so much.MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Borne "What inherent meaning exists in matter?" This is of course the key question. If you believe, as I do, that all our desires, ability to suffer, feelings for others etc arise from matter - then quite a lot.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

If life is just happenstance, animated matter, and consciousness is just the product of material processes, then what's wrong with simply killing everyone who disagrees with you? Isn't it basically the same thing as weeding your garden? The hypocrisy of the materialist is that they wish to proselytize their dangerous philosophy while being comfortably protected from the inevitable conclusions of that philosophy by non-materialistic (theistic, spiritual) rules of morality, ethics and justice. Even Dawkins admits he wouldn't like a society based on materialistic darwinism ... yet, oddly, that doesn't stop him from promulgating those ideas into society, and attempting to dismantle the very views that keep society from rushing headlong into that disastrous consequence.William J. Murray_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Barry My point is not about the nature of consciousness. It is that there is no hypocrisy. You can believe that mind is result of the electro-chemical activity of the brain and also think that it is ontologically meaningful. I will "move along" if you want - but I think you misunderstood my first comment.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Even if it was a byproduce of “chance and necessity” as you say would that make it meaningless?
Of course. What inherent meaning exists in matter? None. What inherent meaning exists in a thing we call a brain if all that is produced by that such a mere material organ is nothing but electro-chemical pulses? Crick said, "you're nothing but a pack of neurons" - so what gives inherent meaning t o a pack of neurons? Why should anyone believe a pack of neurons? If you're nothing but a bag of chemicals there is no real meaning - either in your own brain or anyone else's - no more than a worms brain. Meaning is thus all in your mind. Just an illusion. Evidence to the contrary? As Berceuse said, you could at least do your homework! Maybe look up Dr. Jeffery S Schwartz. Maybe start HEREBorne_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

" You are also asserting that consciousness is not simply an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical activity of the brain but unlike your opponents you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. " - Mike Actually, entire books have been written on this subject. Do your homework.Berceuse_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

"Fear is the mind killer." Also, quoting "Dune" in support of your argument automatically puts you in the "frivolous" category.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Neither Mike nor Mark seem to understand the point of the post. The post is not about the nature of consciousness. It is about the hypocrisy of trying to have it both ways -- saying it means nothing and that it means everthing at the same time. Mike and Mark should move along. Those of you capable of grasping the basic point of the post should feel free to post comments.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

at that stage of development is not self-conscious.
Do you believe animals can be self-conscious Barry? Are you a vegetarian Barry?MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Barry
asserting that it is nothing but an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical activity of the brain.
Are you not doing the same thing, more or less? You are also asserting that consciousness is not simply an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical activity of the brain but unlike your opponents you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your opponents have, apart from much expermental work tying alterations in consciousness to alterations in the physical structure of the brain (for instance, damaging parts of the brain in seperate people produces similar effects) never seen any evidence that supports your case. What direct (or indirect) evidence do you have that supports your case may I ask?
Well, which is it? Is consciousness absolutely crucial, literally a matter of life and death, or is it the essentially meaningless byproduct of chance and necessity?
Even if it was a byproduce of "chance and necessity" as you say would that make it meaningless? Why? If it were proven to be the case would you not still feel, see, live life, love etc? Nothing would change. As Mark asks, why do you see the two as incompatible? Are you afraid that if you believe that consciousness is "reduced" to mere matter and matter alone you won't go somewhere after you die like you hope you will currently (I presume?) Is it fear of oblivion that drives you on this subject? Fear is the mind killer.MikeKratch_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

There is no contradiction in supposing that consciousness is a key factor in ethics and also that it is the consequence of electro-chemical activity of the brain. Why do you see the two as incompatible?Mark Frank_{December 17, 2008
December
12
Dec
17
17
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply