The Mental Dilemma of the Materialist

_{William Murray

August 24, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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:
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.
LoL! Upright Biped's model is valid, is supported by the data and only hand-waving or willful ignorance can say otherwise.Joe_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

WJM
Under materialism, aren’t all things considered “physical”? Your entire case here is that language, minds, arguments are all physical processes. Isn’t all coercion, even that of language, concepts and arguments,physical coercion?
“Physical” can take on many shades of meaning depending on context. We often contract mental with physical but that doesn’t mean the mental is not a BPP. But if by physical you mean can ultimately be reduced to a BPP then all coercion is physical coercion. That doesn’t meant that every physical process is coercion.
Mark, do you ask people if they want to have their minds changed before you attempt to physically cause them to change? Or do you recklessly run around the internet throwing arguments around, hoping that your arguments change minds regardless of whether or not those other people want to have their minds changed, and regardless of the potential consequences to those people’s BPPs and their overall lives? Do you believe whatever you want to believe, Mark? Or, can a good argument and evidence force youto change your mind and believe something else
As I said in a previous post many people have beliefs because they feel comfortable with them or want to have them for various reasons. Others want to believe the truth whatever it is. Most people have a mixture of the two. So what?Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

UB
You can’t be “very interested” in the structure of communications while at the same time deny a valid model of that structure which you cannot refute. Holding both these positions is incoherent.
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.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

WJM. This interrogation is getting rather long and time-consuming. Please understand if I do not respond to everything you write.
What do you think your success rate is in changing the minds of IDists and/or creationists, using this online reason/evidence technique?
I was thinking of much more mundane arguments – such as the best way to drive to London airport on a Monday morning. Arguing with people on “deep” issues is rarely successful and I guess we usually do it for other reasons. I still think my chances of success are a lot higher than they would be through brain surgery! I fail to see what this has to do with materialism.
Because you said the BPP was largely not understood, so I assumed that matching the right technique with virtually unknown BPPs would be considered mostly chance.
It is quite common to use a process because it works without understanding how it works. Most people have almost no idea about how the Internet works but happily use it. That doesn’t mean they throw out keystrokes at random and are lucky.
My question is: under materialism, how does the use of logic, reason, evidence, in principle, physically differ from what we would call “brainwashing”?
We don’t know nearly enough about the BPPs to describe the processes in terms of chemistry and neurons.
Aren’t logic, reason, evidence simply specific uses of language and medium, much like threats, intimidation, repetition, etc., simply forms of physical language input that can cause someone’s beliefs to change, even if they don’t want them to change,, and even if they were perfectly happy with their old beliefs?
If they really don’t want to change their beliefs then I doubt rational argument will do the job. Occasionally people are more interested in having true beliefs than beliefs they are comfortable with and they will be susceptible to argument. I admit this is quite rare. Again – I fail to see what this has to do with materialism.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
It is grossly over-simplifying extremely complicated and poorly understood processes to refer to the “will” bits.
How fortunate for materialists to have this complexity as a buffer between their beliefs and reality. If we could examine the will closely enough to see that it was no more than physicochemical states in the end, that might be inconvenient to the supposition that arguments have any sort of logical force to them.
It might in principle I suppose be possible to artificially recreate some aspects of that process through surgery/chemicals or whatever which would create deep philosophical, legal and ethical problems. Luckily we are nowhere close to being able to do that.
Whew. We've narrowly avoided blundering into the "ethical" bits. Wait. Why luckily?Phinehas_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: As a follow up, have you considered that evolution (that incredible force of nature that both caused the first perfect dragonfly to appear and then also perfected it over the next 300 million years), was responsible for flipping the God-believing bits in our brains to the "on" position in the first place? Have you considered that it may well have done so for the purpose of fitting the human race for survival? Or that misguided attempts to flip these bits "off" (through surgery or other methods) could have a detrimental effect on the work of evolution over millions of years? In other words, why should true beliefs about God be more important to you, me, or the continued evolution of mankind than beliefs that help us survive? Yet you appear to behave as if they are.Phinehas_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
Against their what? Are the “will” bits privileged in some way over the other bits? Would surgically changing the “will” bits be the same as this nasty “coercion” thing? When you are flipping bits, how is it that some flipping gets categorized differently than other flipping? Does this categorization arise from the physical properties of the bits
It is grossly over-simplifying extremely complicated and poorly understood processes to refer to the “will” bits. There are some mental processes which are voluntary actions and others that are not. Such processes are the result of many billions of interactions in the central nervous system and possibly other parts of the body. It might in principle I suppose be possible to artificially recreate some aspects of that process through surgery/chemicals or whatever which would create deep philosophical, legal and ethical problems. Luckily we are nowhere close to being able to do that.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Mark F said:
Because physical coercion is forcing someone to do something against their will.
Under materialism, aren't all things considered "physical"? Your entire case here is that language, minds, arguments are all physical processes. Isn't all coercion, even that of language, concepts and arguments, physical coercion? Mark, do you ask people if they want to have their minds changed before you attempt to physically cause them to change? Or do you recklessly run around the internet throwing arguments around, hoping that your arguments change minds regardless of whether or not those other people want to have their minds changed, and regardless of the potential consequences to those people's BPPs and their overall lives? Do you believe whatever you want to believe, Mark? Or, can a good argument and evidence force you to change your mind and believe something else?William J Murray_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

oops ... sorry WJM ... I'll leave it alone. Mark is intelligent enough to know being impervious to evidence on this topic is the only solution he has.Upright BiPed_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
It is of course true that people can have false beliefs induced by surgical means
I think you may have attempted to shift the subject slightly here. We were discussing philosophical beliefs, but your response is more about sensory accuracy, isn't it? Again, do you really believe the following?
Phin: So, in effect, you are only a surgery away from believing in God? Sure, we don’t understand the biochemistry of the brain enough to pull this off yet, but if we did, all we’d need to do is flip the right bit(s) in your brain, and presto, Mark Frank would be a bible-thumping Creationist?
Phinehas_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

MF,
I am very interested in the way communications work.
You can't be "very interested" in the structure of communications while at the same time deny a valid model of that structure which you cannot refute. Holding both these positions is incoherent.Upright BiPed_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Mark F said:
I don’t know if scientific is the right word – that implies something rather rigorous. It is more everyday experience – but that is a good reason for believing it is likely to work.
It appears to me that you are saying here that your personal experience with attempting to change the minds of various people via the specific methodology you are now employing has had success in the past, and so you expect it to be successful in the future with other people. What do you think your success rate is in changing the minds of IDists and/or creationists, using this online reason/evidence technique?
Why largely lucky?
Because you said the BPP was largely not understood, so I assumed that matching the right technique with virtually unknown BPPs would be considered mostly chance.
All my experience shows that certain types of argument often work.
As I asked before, how many IDist and/or creationist minds have you changed online using this technique? How many have you attempted to change? What is your success rate?
I don’t see why that is brainwashing.
I didn't think that you would, which is why I asked how you justify your view that they are different. My question is: under materialism, how does the use of logic, reason, evidence, in principle, physically differ from what we would call "brainwashing"? Aren't logic, reason, evidence simply specific uses of language and medium, much like threats, intimidation, repetition, etc., simply forms of physical language input that can cause someone's beliefs to change, even if they don't want them to change,, and even if they were perfectly happy with their old beliefs? Under materialism, how is reasoned, logical, evidence-based argument in principle different than use of threats, intimidation, repetition, appeal to emotion, rhetoric, jingoism, and other such language-based brainwashing techniques to acquire the change of a particular person's beliefs?William J Murray_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Mark, ...and yet, you cannot point to a single refutation of the observations made. You know this to be true. This is what is meant by "isn't interested" in the implications.Upright BiPed_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
WJM: 3. If convincing others to change their mind is not the same as physical coercion under materilism, why not?
MF: Because physical coercion is forcing someone to do something against their will.

Against their what? Are the "will" bits privileged in some way over the other bits? Would surgically changing the "will" bits be the same as this nasty "coercion" thing? When you are flipping bits, how is it that some flipping gets categorized differently than other flipping? Does this categorization arise from the physical properties of the bits?Phinehas_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

UB
Specifically in your case, would it not be more accurate to say that the materialist isn’t interested in the physical structure of communication (signs, symbols) – given the implications?
I am very interested in the way communications work. I think perhaps you are alluding to your specific position on this. I am no longer interested in that as I have seen debated it many, many times.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed "Specifically in your case, would it not be more accurate to say that the materialist isn’t interested in the physical structure of communication (signs, symbols) – given the implications?" Of course, it's never ever been about the science. It never was for Darwin, so why would his faithful followers & specifically his Proselytes here on U.D. be any different than their own holy man ?DavidD_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Phinehas It is of course true that people can have false beliefs induced by surgical means - although we do not have the sophistication to control what those beliefs are. I am pretty confident that my beliefs are mostly true because they keep on matching up against experience and are consist with each other i.e the same reasons we all have confidence in our beliefs. Of course the whole thing might be an illusion. But that is a philosophical conundrum that confronts all of us - not just materialists.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

WJM
My entire point is predicated on the assumption (arguendo) that mind is a BPP. My point is that materialists do not actually behave as if mind is a BPP, but rather act as if mind is not a BPP when they appeal to the minds of others in their arguments.
I understand that now. Thanks.
1. What scientific support do you have for believing that the specific language methodology you are employing here (I would assume, use of reason & evidence) and medium employed is effective in changing the beliefs of others (the individual BPPs of which are a complete unknown to you) in the manner you wish them to be changed?
I don’t know if scientificis the right word – that implies something rather rigorous. It is more everyday experience – but that is a good reason for believing it is likely to work. Just as I have good reason to suppose that if I use appropriate tools and techniques a shelf will stay up (well not so very good reason in my case ). I can’t say I ever did a scientific study to back that up!
2. If “changing the beliefs of others” can be effected in the manner you are attempting – by using perhaps a largely lucky combinatorial string of words that would physically cause the other person to change their belief – aren’t you, in effect, “brainwashing” them … coercing them through physical techniques into changing their views?
Why largely lucky? All my experience shows that certain types of argument often work. I don’t see why that is brainwashing. I develop arguments (a BPP), I articulate those arguments as language (a BPP), the other person hopefully understands the language (a BPP) and is convinced by the arguments (a BPP). Remember that materialism is the view that all mental activities including reasoning and understanding are BPPs.
3. If convincing others to change their mind is not the same as physical coercion under materilism, why not?
Because physical coercion is forcing someone to do something against their will. I am (hopefully) giving them good reason to change their mind. But being a materialist I believe that having a good reason and acting on it is a BPP.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
We don’t in general have the knowledge of the biochemistry of mental BPPs to affect people’s views via injections, pills or surgery but that doesn’t prove that the methods that we do use, words etc, are not in the end reducible to material events.
So, in effect, you are only a surgery away from believing in God? Sure, we don't understand the biochemistry of the brain enough to pull this off yet, but if we did, all we'd need to do is flip the right bit(s) in your brain, and presto, Mark Frank would be a bible-thumping Creationist? Seriously? You really believe that? Have you considered that this belief would also be subject to the aforementioned surgical bit flipping? Are you also aware that bits in computers sometimes get flipped randomly by things like solar flares and the like? How confident can you be that your belief isn't what it is because of solar activity, radiation, or a host of other random physiological influences? And have you considered that the confidence itself might be subject to the same influences? How is it not turtles all the way down? The mental house of the materialist is built on sand. Refusing to look down won't change this.Phinehas_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

MF,
Because he has very little idea how the physical structure works whereas the physical process of language is quite effective.
Specifically in your case, would it not be more accurate to say that the materialist isn't interested in the physical structure of communication (signs, symbols) - given the implications?Upright BiPed_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Summary: A materialist holds that changing a persons 'mind' is not based on the strength of an argument, but instead based on chemical stuff (BPP). Materialists are, in effect, totally irrational debaters.Box_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Mark, My entire point is predicated on the assumption (arguendo) that mind is a BPP. My point is that materialists do not actually behave as if mind is a BPP, but rather act as if mind is not a BPP when they appeal to the minds of others in their arguments. You said:
Because he has very little idea how the physical structure works whereas the physical process of language is quite effective.
I assume you mean that "the use of language" is "quite effective" in correspondence to what my OP is about; appealing to the minds of others to get them to change their beliefs. 1. What scientific support do you have for believing that the specific language methodology you are employing here (I would assume, use of reason & evidence) and medium employed is effective in changing the beliefs of others (the individual BPPs of which are a complete unknown to you) in the manner you wish them to be changed? 2. If "changing the beliefs of others" can be effected in the manner you are attempting - by using perhaps a largely lucky combinatorial string of words that would physically cause the other person to change their belief - aren't you, in effect, "brainwashing" them ... coercing them through physical techniques into changing their views? 3. If convincing others to change their mind is not the same as physical coercion under materilism, why not?William J Murray_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
One of things that material minds do is assign meanings to words.
What is a "material mind"?Joe_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
he materialist position is that the mind is a BPP which is the result of other BPPs including other minds.
Great- when are they going to figure out how to test that claim?Joe_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

F/N, FTR: I need to note the following, in the teeth of the obvious prevalence of a zero concessions policy by materialists and fellow travellers:
GIGO-limited, cause-effect blind computation is not in the same category as insightful, understanding based ground and consequent reasoning or inference on best explanation -- nor does it even begin to tend towards it. To try to derive the second from the first is a fallacy of trying to get North by heading due West.
Beyond, materialist accounts of the brain as a neural network computational substrate are repeatedly coming up short in trying to account for the massive FSCO/I in both the neurons as hardware and the software expressed in network patterns and weighted connexions. The only vera causa plausible, empirically observed, needle in haystack plausible search challenge warranted causal factor known to account for FSCO/I is design. But, there is a zero concession policy in force, which locks out what the empirical observations and linked reason so strongly point to. It is time to take that bull by its horns that it imagined was its strength. KFkairosfocus_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

#28 Stephenb Sounds, written signs, symbols on computer screens etc.Mark Frank_{August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

27 Mark, What are the physical components of language?StephenB_{August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

#26 Stephenb Because he has very little idea how the physical structure works whereas the physical process of language is quite effective.Mark Frank_{August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Where’s the problem?
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?StephenB_{August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply