One Can’t Even Speak as if Materialism Were True

_{Barry Arrington

August 14, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

In a previous post I demonstrated that no sane person acts as if materialism were true. It later occurred to me that it is impossible to even speak as if materialism were true.

Consider the following statement:

“I believe materialism is true.”

The statement implicitly affirms the following three things that are true only if monist materialism is false:

Subject-object duality. There is a subject (the observer; i.e., the “I” in the statement) who perceives an object (the concept of materialism).

Intentionality. A mental state exists that is directed toward some object. Bags of chemicals do not have beliefs.

Self-aware subjectivity as a declared reality. It is absurd to say the illusion of myself foisted on me by the chemicals that make up my body has a position regarding the truth of materialism. The speaker concedes the reality of the subjective self.

Comments

Seversky contemplating his 'mind' http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpgbornagain77_{August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

hard put to come up with a theory that works half as well as a materialist account.
Sev, regarding materialism, the only reason you are here is because a particular physical system exists that decouples its product from the physical properties of its constituents. The going gets tough when the thing you are trying to explain is the product of a system that specifically sidesteps your theory. And I'll leave it to you to guess where the only other place we can find such a system.Upright BiPed_{August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

JDH @ 42
This is typical “science of the gaps” thinking. It’s not that there is an inherent contradiction between consciousness and materialism, it is that our scientists have not yet figured it out.
That's right. There is no inherent contradiction between a materialist or physicalist account of the world and consciousness. In fact, we have plenty of evidence from brain research that consciousness is closely associated with the physical brain. For example, consciousness disappears irreversibly if the brain is destroyed; memories, smells, and various emotions can be elicited by electrical stimulation of appropriate regions of the brain. This and other evidence means that believers in a disembodied, immaterial concept of consciousness are going to be hard put to come up with a theory that works half as well as a materialist account. They certainly aren't anywhere near it yet.
Do you also subscribe to these statements: If it refers to the hard problem of the perpetual energy machine, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible. If it refers to the hard problem of turning lead into gold, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible. [...]
No, but as noted before, there is nothing to show that consciousness violates any of the well established laws governing the observable universe.
Why can’t you see that there is not just a “hard problem of consciousness”. The very idea that dumb particles responding to unguided forces could ever create a being which takes an objective position on a timeless fact ( a belief ), or has knowledge of self that evaluates whether it is making a moral choice ( not just a fight or flight choice ) is SELF-CONTRADICTORY under the current physical paradigm.
Once again, there is no obvious contradiction between consciousness and the material world and good evidence to link it to the physical brain. What we certainly still lack is a detailed account of how consciousness emerges from all the processes going on in the living brain. The only way to find out if there is such an explanation is to keep working at it.
A materialistic model of consciousness will not fit into the current understanding of physics that undergirds all of modern science. Any correct model would first have to overthrow the current limitations placed on particles and forces. It would need particles and forces themselves to have internal knowledge. It would even undermine the tenets that established the theory of evolution.
Dumb particles of hydrogen and oxygen and the forces that bind them can combine to form the most beautiful snowflakes, complex structures that we could not have predicted from the basic properties of the components. There is nothing to suggest that they have some sort of "internal knowledge" that enables them to do that. I also see nothing that requires the particles and forces of which a brain is composed to have "internal knowledge" that enable them to do that.
Why can’t you see this? My suspicion is that you are so committed to physicalism that you must believe in the possibility of consciousness without non-materialistic intelligence.
I don't see it because there is nothing to see. All you have done is asserted what you believe to be the case but I don't see any arguments or evidence to support the claim that consciousness and physicalism are inherently incompatible or contradictory.
Your position is foolish.
Possibly, but you haven't shown that to be the case yet and I don't think you can. I think we simply don't yet know enough about consciousness and the brain to say for certain one way or the other.Seversky_{August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

A devastating follow-up post, Barry : Taking apart the big picture by breaking it down to the folly of its key constituents. William J Murray's speciality, normally.Axel_{August 18, 2016
August
08
Aug
18
18
2016
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Seversky You unfortunately said:
If it refers to the hard problem of consciousness, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible.
This is typical "science of the gaps" thinking. It's not that there is an inherent contradiction between consciousness and materialism, it is that our scientists have not yet figured it out. Do you also subscribe to these statements: If it refers to the hard problem of the perpetual energy machine, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible. If it refers to the hard problem of turning lead into gold, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible. If it refers to the hard problem of spoon bending using only thought, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible. If it refers to the hard problem of young earth creationism, the fact that we don’t yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn’t mean one is impossible You see, things like "perpetual energy machine, alchemy, telekinesis, YEC" violate principles that we have observed over and over again. By the logic of induction, we reject these ideas. Why can't you see that there is not just a "hard problem of consciousness". The very idea that dumb particles responding to unguided forces could ever create a being which takes an objective position on a timeless fact ( a belief ), or has knowledge of self that evaluates whether it is making a moral choice ( not just a fight or flight choice ) is SELF-CONTRADICTORY under the current physical paradigm. A materialistic model of consciousness will not fit into the current understanding of physics that undergirds all of modern science. Any correct model would first have to overthrow the current limitations placed on particles and forces. It would need particles and forces themselves to have internal knowledge. It would even undermine the tenets that established the theory of evolution. Why can't you see this? My suspicion is that you are so committed to physicalism that you must believe in the possibility of consciousness without non-materialistic intelligence. Much like the medieval alchemist- you continue to believe that someday you really will find a pathway to gold (consciousness) from lead (physicalism). Your position is foolish.JDH_{August 17, 2016
August
08
Aug
17
17
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

“I believe materialism is true.”
Strictly speaking, "materialism" is regarded as an obsolete term in philosophy. "Physicalism" is the more modern term as it embraces the broader current understanding from physics of the observable reality of the natural world, that there is still stuff we call "matter" but there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
Subject-object duality. There is a subject (the observer; i.e., the “I” in the statement) who perceives an object (the concept of materialism).
There is no obvious reason to believe this is false. If it refers to the hard problem of consciousness, the fact that we don't yet have a good materialistic account of its nature doesn't mean one is impossible. And whatever the problems with a materialistic account of consciousness, conceiving it as a disembodied, immaterial, unmeasurable, unobservable "something" that is out there somewhere is much worse as it is, by definition, inaccessible to science and hence useless as a scientific explanation.
Intentionality. A mental state exists that is directed toward some object. Bags of chemicals do not have beliefs
A bag of water does not have beliefs as far as we know. That same amount of water incorporated can be incorporated a human body - which is around 60% water - and that human body does have beliefs.
Self-aware subjectivity as a declared reality. It is absurd to say the illusion of myself foisted on me by the chemicals that make up my body has a position regarding the truth of materialism. The speaker concedes the reality of the subjective self.
See above concerning the hard problem of consciousness. For the record, I think it is misleading to think of our conscious experience as an illusion. I think of it more as a model in which some, but far from the whole, of the nature of reality is represented. We perceive a rose as red but that redness is not part of the nature of the rose but the way we represent in our internal model the narrow band of light wavelengths reflected by the rose. Physics has also revealed aspects of the natural world of which we have no conscious awareness, such as the billions of neutrinos pouring out of the Sun which are flowing through every square centimeter of our bodies every second. If we conceive of our conscious world as a model or representation of what is actually out there then, to be useful, it would also have to include a representation of ourself in relation to what is actually out there, in other words, the subjective self. How this is all implemented in the physical brain is still the hard problem of consciousness. What is a no-brainer is the observation of no brain, no consciousness.Seversky_{August 17, 2016
August
08
Aug
17
17
2016
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

JDH,
There is a subject “I” which claims self-knowledge and the ability to have intentional beliefs. idk – What in the world is your model for a essentially chemical being to have beliefs?????? I can understand an essentially chemical being having tendencies, feelings, behaviors and responses. That seems to fit a reasonable model. BUT you can not possibly answer the question ( other than to obfuscate and put up a word salad ) how a material bag can have intentional beliefs. Please remember mere assertion and claiming your opponent has a closed mind is not victory. You must be able to present a satisfactory model in which a bag of molecules which merely respond to physical law can form a belief. I don’t believe you can honestly do this.
Very well said. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2016
August
08
Aug
17
17
2016
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Yes, Dionisio, I did. I thought they were good questions - one's requiring quite a bit more than a quick response, so I thought I would try to find time to respond today.jdk_{August 16, 2016
August
08
Aug
16
16
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

jdk, I am interested in another thing, related to the materialist view of things. Are thoughts ultimately reducible to purely chemical and other physical properties such that they could theoretically be reduced to a formula and created in a sophisticated lab. Could the thought, 'those potato chips look good, but I'm on a diet' be expressed as a specific formula? And necessarily, wouldn't the same thought be expressed by slightly different formulas depending on what language it is thought in? If the French version of that thought were manufactured in a lab and inserted into my brain, would I be able to understand it ( I am assuming not, as I don't speak French)? Isn't that what materialism ultimately claims, that each thought can be isolated as the chemical and electromagnetic properties it possesses, and ultimately reproducible with the right technology?soundburger_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

jdk, I don't think that gorillas are 'merely chemical', and I think that should be obvious. The issue is if chemicals themselves are 'merely chemical' or if they arise within something that is more than what they are. The best analogy I can think of would be a painting - a masterpiece. The painting is likely to have human figures as well as manufactured items such as furniture and clothing. On the one hand, the entire painting is 'just' made up of brushstrokes, so it doesn't matter if it's a beautiful woman's face or a scratch on a chair being depicted. If we try to reduce the painting to 'just brushstrokes' we have one, very limited way of looking at it. But no sane person would look at a painting and think it stops at the brushstrokes. They would recognize the work of something OUTSIDE the painting itself, in this case a painter. Chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, etc.; none of these need to be looked at as 'just' chemicals anymore than a masterwork of art should ever be looked upon as just an arrangement of brushstrokes.soundburger_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

jdk, Did you read the questions @34? Can you answer them? Thank you.Dionisio_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

I'm asking the questions I am to explore the issue. Are gorillas merely chemical? I know you think humans are more than merely chemical, but what about other animals? I am trying to understand the various views on this issue better, and answers to these questions will clarify some things, I think, at least for me.jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

jdk, the question is whether or not we are merely chemical. You purposely avoid evidence on that front.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

jdk @28
Do gorillas have, to some degree, beliefs, consciousness, free will and/or a sense of self that is like those qualities as possessed by humans? And are gorillas, as animals, purely composed of chemicals, or do gorillas also possess, to some degree, a non-material aspect of their being that is like that which is understood here to be possessed by humans?
Those are very interesting questions. I don't think I have the capacity to answer them accurately, but for me to at least comment on them seriously I would like to know exactly the meaning of your questions. Regarding the terms you used in your first question @28, can you tell: What are 'beliefs"? What is 'consciousness'? What is 'free will'? What is 'sense of oneself"? How do we know that humans possess those qualities or attributes? Thank you.Dionisio_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Hi UB. Would you be willing to let me know what you think about the questions I asked about gorillas in 28?jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

I am a integrated biological being, essentially chemical, and I have beliefs. You just can’t see any possible other philosophical perspectives other than your own.
Since you avoid physical evidence, your conclusions are protected from reason, and thus, are of lesser substance than they would be otherwise.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Hi JDH. I didn't know we were just talking about moral beliefs. Looking back at the thread, I see that the word "moral" didn't show up until your post. But I take it you agree that gorillas have beliefs in the sense that they act as if they anticipate what might or might not happen if they do something. In fact, might we call this knowledge rather than belief? Does that seem reasonable to you? And what is your answer to my second question: are gorillas "just chemicals", or do they have some non-material aspect similar or analogous to that which many believe is possessed by humans?jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

idk@29 - I think it is a good question whether gorillas have beliefs. They seem to exhibit behaviors which require quite a bit of thinking. But nothing i have seen in all the Jane Goodall et al. documentaries that would indicate they think morally about anything. It seems all higher animals can use their nervous system to model "what happens next?". Thus the gorilla running toward the wall can play in his mind - "If I keep going straight, I will run into that solid looking wall and that will hurt". This is not moral thinking, this is just projection of the current observations into the limited future. Some of this projected thinking can get pretty complicated and even involve conditionals. i.e." when I hear the sound of a door slam, they have left some food in the far corner". Or, "I miss having that other gorilla around". Notice, the natural need for these animals to seek social contact, does not require they think morally. They could be only answering a built in need for companionship that is hard wired in their central nervous system and gut. I have never seen any behavior by any higher animal that could not be explained in terms of this natural pre-seeded behavior or instinct. Moral thinking exhibited by human beings - i.e. thoughts involving whether something is an objective good or not ( as opposed to a hard-wired behavior) seems to only be possible in human beings. I don't think it possible to propose any model for moral thinking that does not depend upon the knowledge of both a self as a moral being, and a judge who is a transcendent being. Once you remove the ability to think morally, it is a moot point to have a belief. Beliefs only make sense in light of a moral answer, not a purely self-serving behavior. So I do not think gorillas have beliefs in the sense we are discussing here.JDH_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

jdk said.
I am a integrated biological being, essentially chemical, and I have beliefs. You just can’t see any possible other philosophical perspectives other than your own.
So let's analyze idk's statement. There is a subject "I" which claims self-knowledge and the ability to have intentional beliefs. idk - What in the world is your model for a essentially chemical being to have beliefs?????? I can understand an essentially chemical being having tendencies, feelings, behaviors and responses. That seems to fit a reasonable model. BUT you can not possibly answer the question ( other than to obfuscate and put up a word salad ) how a material bag can have intentional beliefs. Please remember mere assertion and claiming your opponent has a closed mind is not victory. You must be able to present a satisfactory model in which a bag of molecules which merely respond to physical law can form a belief. I don't believe you can honestly do this. As for me, I think you are a fool. Just my belief. Please try to prove me wrong.JDH_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Barry
Subject-object duality. There is a subject (the observer; i.e., the “I” in the statement) who perceives an object (the concept of materialism).
How is a concept an object?
Bags of chemicals do not have beliefs.
You are a bag of highly organised and arranged chemicals are you not?
It is absurd to say the illusion of myself foisted on me by the chemicals that make up my body has a position regarding the truth of materialism.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but your characterisation of the view of modern biology and it's assertions is ridiculously simplified to the point of being a straw man portrayal.
UDEditors: Cowardly attempt to derail the discussion deleted.
Why not leave the comment and let the rest of us decide? If your arguments are strong then leaving pointless distractions visible only makes you look better. Mung
The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.
He did say 'almost impossible'. That's not the same as impossible is it?ellazimm_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

SB, right as rain after drought. But we notice how consistently champions of materialism tip toe by such frank admissions by their own champions. Rather telling. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, re:
If consciousness is purely material then Barry’s argument falls apart.
Let's see, such would require accounting for logical insight, judgement, warrant, responsible freedom and rationality on blind chance and mechanical necessity acting on equally blind matter and energy in spacetime. Those processes are inherently blind. The account for such is: ____________________ Of course, you admitted you cannot fill in, the yellowing IOU remains unpaid. Perhaps for good reason, there is a categorical gap involved here. It seems, instead, a sounder approach would be to acknowledge conscious, responsibly free rationality as a first credible fact of experience then of reasoned discussion. Undeniably so, on pain of self-referential incoherence. Then, we seek a worldview on which that life of the mind makes sense. Evolutionary materialist scientism is decidedly not such a view. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 21: "Although atheists accuse theists, as science has progressed, of making ‘God of the gaps’ arguments, the truth of the matter is that, as science has progressed, atheists have had to make more and more outlandish ‘materialism of the gaps’ arguments." Absolutely true. Which is why less people take those lunatics seriously these days. It sure is good to be alive to see these frauds exposed.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

BA @ 7: You are right in saying "...They demonstrate the lunacy to which materialism drives people." Wow. These people are crazy as hell.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Do chemical reactions concern themselves with truth or do they obey the laws of nature?Andre_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H states:
If consciousness is purely material then Barry’s argument falls apart. We don’t have a good explanation of how consciousness works, so the jury should still be out on this. So, until neuroscience has advanced to the point where it has explained consciousness, or has shown that there’s an aspect to consciousness that it will be unable to explain, I’m going to say w don’t know, and not get riled up with people who have a different view. I’m also going to work on a more comfortable fence seat.
Although atheists accuse theists, as science has progressed, of making 'God of the gaps' arguments, the truth of the matter is that, as science has progressed, atheists have had to make more and more outlandish 'materialism of the gaps' arguments.
Why haven’t more people countered criticism of the “God of the Gaps” argument by pointing out that atheists instinctively use a mirror-image “Science of the Gaps” reasoning? By this I mean where they’ll inevitably say, when faced with some unsolvable mystery, “Oh, science will eventually discover the explanation for that.” Such faith I have not found even in Israel! Punting to the future is a cop out. All you’ve done is move the goalposts an infinite distance, since there will forever be a “future” to dump all your hopes in. [Edgestowe]
IMHO, The most bizarre 'materialism of the gaps' argument now-a-days is the claim by materialists that, someday, science will figure out how material itself came into being in the Big Bang by purely material processes.
Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
That's right, no matter that there is no matter-energy space-time to work with in the first place, according to the blind faith of atheists, materialism will, someday in the glorious future of science, be able to explain how material itself brought itself into being.
A Universe From Nothing, Therefore God Exists! - Inspiring Philosophy - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ
To call this 'materialism of the gaps' argument incoherent is an insult incoherent arguments. This argument is more aptly classified, to use Pauli's term, 'not even wrong'! Of related note:
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
bornagain77_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

If consciousness is purely material then Barry's argument falls apart. We don't have a good explanation of how consciousness works, so the jury should still be out on this. So, until neuroscience has advanced to the point where it has explained consciousness, or has shown that there's an aspect to consciousness that it will be unable to explain, I'm going to say w don't know, and not get riled up with people who have a different view. I'm also going to work on a more comfortable fence seat.Bob O'H_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Wow! That Alex Rosenberg clip falls apart in so many places, I half expected it to have collapsed into a pile of letters and punctuation marks at the bottom of the little green outlined box it is contained in before I had a chance to scroll up and read it again!soundburger_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Mung,
Miraculous, even. Atoms explaining themselves. Chemicals explaining themselves. Without reason.
No, I don't mean that atoms or chemicals would then explain themselves. Just that (perhaps) humans could be explained based on the behavior of atoms and/or chemicals.daveS_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

daveS: If it were possible to explain humans in terms of just atoms (or even chemicals), that would be a breakthrough, wouldn’t it? Miraculous, even. Atoms explaining themselves. Chemicals explaining themselves. Without reason.Mung_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply