Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Mental Dilemma of the Materialist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The materialist position is that the mind is an effect of biology and physics.

If the materialist appeals to a person’s mind (logic, reason, thoughts, conscience, emotion) to try and get them to change their views/beliefs, they are necessarily assuming that the mind is not limited to being only an effect of biology/physics, because they would be appealing to an effect (the mind) to change itself, or to itself act in a top-down, causal manner, circumventing the physical causes the materialist supposedly believes actually produces the state-of-mind effect.

Appealing to the minds of others necessarily means assuming those minds are not caused by biology/physics and that those minds have the causal ability to change themselves based on concepts and arguments.  Since those concepts and arguments do not rely upon any particular physical medium of delivery in order for them to be considered by the mind of another – text, sound, braille – it obviously is not the expectation of the materialist that it is the nature of the physical medium employed that causes a physical reaction towards the change in mind – if so, why bother arranging words and sentences so carefully into arguments and concepts at all?

Who knows which string of perceived letters will have what effect on the mind of another?  Wouldn’t you have to know the physiological cause and effect system that culminates in their caused mind to know which set of perceived letters will generate the desired effect?  Yet, where do our materialist counterparts ever try to understand the physiological causes that generate our beliefs and views before they begin their argument?  They act as if the actual physical, cause-and-effect interactions of medium and the physical state and physical processing mechanisms of the recipient are irrelevant!

Materialists argue and act as if the particular physical medium carrying their messages isn’t important at all, but rather that it is the mental concepts contained in the physical medium that is the important thing, as if the mind of the other person can comprehend the message regardless of the medium (conceptually top-down, not physically bottom-up), and as if changing the mind of the other person isn’t at all a matter of the biology and physics of the message-carrying medium, but rather of the argument and concepts regardless of the medium.

IOW, whenever a materialist argues, they can only do so based on non-materialist assumptions, and they do so in contradiction to their own stated core beliefs.

Comments
Mark Frank #5: The materialist position is that the mind is biology and physics.
Somehow materialists, like Mark Frank, don’t realize how utterly insane their theory makes them look. “The mind is biology and physics …” It doesn’t require any effort in order to refute materialism. In order to refute it one just has to point out the simple fact that atoms and molecules are not interested in anything related to the mind, e.g. meaning, logic, truth, understanding or love. Materialism fails for a similar reason as the theory that amoebae have written the first bible, which is that amoebae are not interested in writing a bible.Box
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
#82 Box
Still no response from Mark Frank
I just noticed this comment. I haven't been following this thread since Aug 30th. Response to what? It is kind of hard to respond to the phrase "Crickets chirping".Mark Frank
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
A striking example of irrationality:
For solid evolutionary reasons, we've been tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates. The physical facts fix all the facts. The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live. Not that there was ever much doubt about mortality anyway.
[A.Rosenberg, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality", Ch.9]Box
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
Still no response from Mark Frank :(
Box #68, #75 (….) So indeed, the materialist claims that evaluating the strength of an argument is identical with a totally irrational process, which makes him an irrational debater. Thank you for proving my point.
… *crickets chirping* …Box
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
#80 StephenB
The materialist claims to believe that those same material components are the means why which he communicates. Still, he cannot identify those elements, which means that he cannot possibly know what he is doing’–until, of course, he confesses (quietly and only to himself) that it is really the non-material arrangements of letters and characters that define his message. It is only then that he, and the receiver of that information, know what he is trying to say. No one can receive the material components of a message and know what it means, which means that the sender also cannot know what it means. Indeed, you don’t know, nor do I, all the material components involved in this comment, but you understand it because you also know that it is the non-material elements that define it.
There are all sorts of things that are necessary for me to understand your comment – conventions of the English language, sufficient context to interpret your intentions, technology etc.  Did you really think that materialists are not aware of these things? We believe that they can all in theory be reduced to material objects and events (of course there is a whole debate about counts as material but I suggest we don’t tackle that). Mark Frank
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Mark
When you send an e-mail you probably cannot identify the physical components that are used to transmit the e-mail (unless you are extremely technical).
The materialist claims to believe that those same material components are the means why which he communicates. Still, he cannot identify those elements, which means that he cannot possibly know what he is doing--until, of course, he confesses (quietly and only to himself) that it is really the non-material arrangements of letters and characters that define his message. It is only then that he, and the receiver of that information, know what he is trying to say. No one can receive the material components of a message and know what it means, which means that the sender also cannot know what it means. Indeed, you don't know, nor do I, all the material components involved in this comment, but you understand it because you also know that it is the non-material elements that define it.StephenB
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Mung - I am going to leave it at that. I doubt anyone else is reading our little dialogue but I hope they do.Mark Frank
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I should have been more precise.
Why OUGHT you have been more precise?
If you mean I am anti-realist about abstract objects and universals then that is exactly the same as saying I am a nominalist
No, it isn't exactly the same. There are categories of nominalism (which in itself seems to defeat the entire enterprise). See the previously linked article to SEP.
I rather assumed you meant I was an anti-realist in some sense other than being a nominalist.
The one logically follows from the other, and you want to fault me for pointing it out? Ought I have been more precise in identifying precisely which kind of anti-realist you are? Why?Mung
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
#76 Mung I should have been more precise. Anti-realism is a meaningless term unless you specify anti-realist about what. If you mean I am anti-realist about abstract objects and universals then that is exactly the same as saying I am a nominalist and I wondered why you bothered writing:
So you are a nominialist [sic] and an anti-realist. No wonder you’re confused.
I rather assumed you meant I was an anti-realist in some sense other than being a nominalist.Mark Frank
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Nominalist yes – but how on earth did you conclude I was an anti-realist?
Thus Nominalism, in both senses, is a kind of anti-realism. For one kind of Nominalism denies the existence, and therefore the reality, of universals and the other denies the existence, and therefore the reality, of abstract objects. Nominalism in Metaphysics (SEP)
Mung
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
Box #68: (....) So indeed, the materialist claims that evaluating the strength of an argument is identical with a totally irrational process, which makes him an irrational debater. Thank you for proving my point.
Mark Frank: ... *crickets chirping* ...
Box
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
#73 Mung Nominalist yes - but how on earth did you conclude I was an anti-realist?Mark Frank
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
As a materialist I believe that mental processes and states can in theory be reduced to physical processes and states – this includes meanings, ideas, arguments, beliefs, intentions etc.
So you are a nominialist and an anti-realist. No wonder you're confused. Since science presuppses realism, I don't see how science can offer anything useful to you. Even if you were capable of providing a scientific account, it would contradict your materialism, and perhaps that is the real crux of the problem. It's not from lack of details.Mung
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Popperian:
For example, I cannot choose to adopt the idea that knowledge (or meaning) comes from authoritative sources due to having been exposed to significant rational criticism of the idea.
Criticism that came from authoritative sources. Oddly enough.Mung
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Mark's response doesn't follow from Stephen's post. If you don't know how emails are sent then you really don't know what you are doing when you are sending one. I am not surprised that Mark doesn't understand that simple concept.Joe
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
#67 Stephenb
When the materialist admits that he can’t identify the physical components that make up his arguments, or the physical components of opinions he wants to change, or the physical components of the attendant mental states of both parties, he is also admitting that he doesn’t know what he is doing when he presumes to persuade anyone. If he knew what he was doing, he would analyze and re-arrange the physical components that he claims are responsible for the hoped-for result
That doesn’t follow at all.  When you send an e-mail you probably cannot identify the physical components that are used to transmit the e-mail (unless you are extremely technical). It doesn’t follow you don’t know what you are doing or that the best way to send an e-mail would be to analyze the components and rearrange them to get the result. See my comment #66 about levels of understanding. I am surprised I have to explain this. I would have thought an educated person like yourself would understand this.Mark Frank
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
As a materialist I believe that mental processes and states can in theory be reduced to physical processes and states
What theory would that be?Joe
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: The materialist view is that the meaning of language is in the end reducible to mental activities which are BPPs.
If the evaluation of the strenght of an argument is identical with 2C + O2 -> 2CO, then the physical properties of the reactants are evaluating the strength of the argument. However physical properties of reactants (and the reactants themselves) are not interested in evaluating anything. So indeed, the materialist claims that evaluating the strength of an argument is identical with a totally irrational process, which makes him an irrational debater. Thank you for proving my point.Box
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Mark
The materialist view is that the meaning of language is in the end reducible to mental activities which are BPPs.
When the materialist admits that he can't identify the physical components that make up his arguments, or the physical components of opinions he wants to change, or the physical components of the attendant mental states of both parties, he is also admitting that he doesn't know what he is doing when he presumes to persuade anyone. If he knew what he was doing, he would analyze and re-arrange the physical components that he claims are responsible for the hoped-for results.StephenB
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
Looking at the various comments above I think there is a basic point to be made.  The same event, process or state can be conceptualised at different levels. As a materialist I believe that mental processes and states can in theory be reduced to physical processes and states – this includes meanings, ideas, arguments, beliefs, intentions etc. However, current science is such that we have very little idea how to describe these mental concepts in terms of biology, chemistry and physics. We only know how to describe them using concepts like the ones I have just listed: meanings, ideas, arguments, beliefs, intentions. This is not a theoretical problem for the materialist. There are many things we can describe at one level but struggle to describe at another level. At one time we could only describe disease in terms of temperatures, inflammation, nausea, pulse rate etc with no idea how this manifested itself at the cellular or molecular level. We have made progress there, but still it is often simpler and more effective to think in terms of the larger scale. There are any number of similar examples e.g. you don’t describe ocean currents  in terms of water molecules or give instructions for creating sulphuric acid in terms of subatomic particles. Breathing is an involuntary activity and most of us have no idea what is happening at a biochemical level when we breath – but we still do it and have an effective way of describing it at a level we are familiar with e.g. deep breaths, filling lungs, holding our breath etc. Once you accept that then I think supposed philosophical problems to do with the physical manifestation of mental concepts go away.  Of course there are massive practical problems. The biology of mental activity is extremely hard.Mark Frank
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
I apologise for the duplicate comments. I don't think it is anything I am doing. I only click Post Comment once.Mark Frank
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
#61 Box
Still, the materialist holds that it is not about meaning of language nor the strength of an argument. Instead it is about the chemical reactions that the physical components of language invoke in the other guy’s brain
This is a false dichotomy. The materialist view is that the meaning of language is in the end reducible to mental activities which are BPPs. You obviously don't agree but there is nothing inconsistent in this view.Mark Frank
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
#61 Box
Still, the materialist holds that it is not about meaning of language nor the strength of an argument. Instead it is about the chemical reactions that the physical components of language invoke in the other guy’s brain
This is a false dichotomy. The materialist view is that the meaning of language is in the end reducible to mental activities which are BPPs. You obviously don't agree but there is nothing inconsistent in this view.Mark Frank
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
We change our preferences when we adopt new ideas about how the world works, in reality. And why do we adopt new ideas? We adopt ideas for which we have the least criticism. For example, I cannot choose to adopt the idea that knowledge (or meaning) comes from authoritative sources due to having been exposed to significant rational criticism of the idea. It's a bad explanation And where do the contents of new ideas come from? Conjectured solutions to problems. And where does specific criticisms come from? We devise tests that we think will expose an error in at least one theory, but not others. These are all creative processes in which we get more out than we put in. Was I brainwashed by being exposed to criticism unless the mind isn't a BPP? This appears to be a false dilemma based on the idea that knowledge, or meaning, comes from infallible, authoritative sources. So, the false dilemma is we can only either be foundationists or disappointed foundationists. From this article on Fallibilism....
Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.” The theory of knowledge is a tightrope that is the only path from A to B, with a long, hard drop for anyone who steps off on one side into “knowledge is impossible, progress is an illusion” or on the other side into “I must be right, or at least probably right.” Indeed, infallibilism and nihilism are twins. Both fail to understand that mistakes are not only inevitable, they are correctable (fallibly). Which is why they both abhor institutions of substantive criticism and error correction, and denigrate rational thought as useless or fraudulent. They both justify the same tyrannies. They both justify each other.
Popperian
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
StephenB #26: If, according to the materialist, communication and influence are the product of a physical processes, then why does he ignore the physical structure or components of the process that is alleged to be responsible for the opinion the he wants to change, and why does he ignore the structure or components of the physical process that is alleged to be responsible for the message he hopes to put in its place?
Mark Frank #27: Because he has very little idea how the physical structure works whereas the physical process of language is quite effective.
StephenB #28: What are the physical components of language?
Mark Frank #29: Sounds, written signs, symbols on computer screens etc.
Still, the materialist holds that it is not about meaning of language nor the strength of an argument. Instead it is about the chemical reactions that the physical components of language invoke in the other guy's brain. IOW the materialist doesn't believe in argumentation, instead he believes in chemical stuff.
Mark Frank #7: One of things that material minds do is assign meanings to words.
Even if that is true, that doesn't make your position any less irrational. Even meaning has no meaning in a purely material world, since meaning reduces to chemical processes. Chemical processes are not interested in meaning and they run the whole show. So ultimately it is not about meaning, not about the strength of argument. According to the materialist it's just about chemical processes. IOW the materialist is an irrational debator.Box
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
SB: What are the physical components of language? Mark
Sounds, written signs, symbols on computer screens etc.
Mark, I don’t think you are grasping the problems associated with the materialist’s explanation of persuasion. How does he disabuse a person of idea A and replace it with idea B, both of which are reportedly made up of material manifestations of a symbol or language? How does he identify the material manifestations that comprised the old message [bits and bytes?, software processes?, computer screens?, sound waves,? Fog horns?, paper and ink?, etc], and how does he decide on which new material manifestations of a symbol or language will displace idea A with idea B? How does he replace the old with the new if he doesn’t know exactly what the old is made of? Even if he could find out, how does he know that the physical manifestations of the old idea [bits, bytes, and software] will be changed by physical manifestations of the new idea [ink, paper, or sound waves]?StephenB
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Occasionally people are more interested in having true beliefs than beliefs they are comfortable with and they will be susceptible to argument.
But why would they ever be more interested in having true beliefs than beliefs that are beneficial to survival? Such an interest would seem ripe for natural selection's pruning work over deep time, would it not?Phinehas
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
MF,
That doesn’t actually follow. Nevertheless if someone presented a valid model of that structure then I would very likely find it interesting. I am convinced that yours is not valid and will not waste time going over it again.
Articulate an invalid observation. You can't. You know you can't. And I know you can't.Upright BiPed
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
If materialism is true then CS Lewis stands- we cannot expect one accumulation of accidents, ie humans, to be able to give a correct accounting of other accumulations of accidents.Joe
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
WJM. This interrogation is getting rather long and time-consuming.
I'm well satisfied with the current state of our exchange - no further "interrogation" necessary. I appreciate your participation.
I fail to see what this has to do with materialism.
That's okay. I never thought you would.William J Murray
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply