The Very Act of Affirming Materialism Refutes It

_{Barry Arrington

February 6, 2023

Intelligent Design}

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

Consider the following statement: “My liver believes materialism is true.”

Sheer lunacy, right? But on materialism, there is no fundamental difference between the brain and the liver. They are both just meat. Therefore, for the materialist, the phrase “my brain believes materialism is true” is equivalent to the phrase “my liver believes materialism is true.”

The materialist really is stuck. Objects like the liver do not have belief states. Philosophers say they do not exhibit “intentionality” (the “aboutness” a subject has towards an object). A rock cannot have a belief about the proposition “materialism is true.” Neither can a liver. Neither can a brain. Thus, the very act of affirming materialism denies one of its fundamental tenants because the act of affirming necessarily requires intentionality.

But I can hear the materialist object, the human body is a system which is greater than any of its individual components like the brain and the liver alone. It still does not work, because on materialism, each human is reducible to the chemical components of his body. Therefore, the body is nothing but a complex amalgamation of chemicals, and the statement “complex amalgamation of chemicals believes materialism is true” gets the materialist no further than “my liver believes materialism is true.”

Materialism requires its proponents simultaneously to hold the following contradictory beliefs:

1. A material object cannot have a belief state.

2. A brain has belief states even though it is just another kind of material object.

A metaphysical system that requires its proponents to hold mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously should be rejected. Our materialist friends can have logic and reason or they can have their materialism. They can’t have both.

Comments

Modern concepts of materialism (or other variations of the idea) accept that the quantum world is part of the physical world, and if consciousness is a different manifestation of the quantum world, then it is also part of the physical world.
This is the same mumbo jumbo "argument"( of Krauss )about nothingness . Funny that the same argument is made also for conscience. Nothingness and conscience must be the same thing then.Sandy_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

@59
If reductionism is truly out of fashion, why not let psychology “naturalize” agent causality? Why start with bacteria? Why not start with humans?
I have nothing against humans. or psychology. The interest in bacteria comes from a certain explanatory strategy: if you want to understand something, begin with the simplest example and proceed from there. Some philosophers are interested in bacteria because they seem to be (on some views) the simplest kind of agents. Generally speaking, I think there's often value in considering seriously fairly extreme or radical views, because then it's easier to identify a more moderate position once there's something to push back against. I am very much inclined towards the view that bacteria count as agents and that organisms are not machines. But if bacteria count as agents, then so to would all of life -- fungi, plants, all the animals from the simplest sponges to the most complicated mammals -- would all count as agents in some sense (though not moral agents).PyrrhoManiac1_{February 9, 2023
February
02
Feb
9
09
2023
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

@Origenes@59 Very good question !Jblais_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Pyrrho
I don’t see any other way of proceeding: begin from life itself, and hope that maybe the problem of abiogenesis will be solved some day, and try not to worry about it too much until then.
Of course. You are a materialist fundamentalist. Grit your teeth. Have faith. I hope that at least you don't make fun of Appalachian snake handling religious fundies. You are, after all, their secular equivalent.Barry Arrington_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

PM1 @58 If reductionism is truly out of fashion, why not let psychology "naturalize" agent causality? Why start with bacteria? Why not start with humans?Origenes_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

@56
Sorry guys, but we have to be really strict here, these fake attempts at “naturalization” cannot be allowed. If the naturalist wants to explain agent causality from matter, his starting point must be inanimate matter. The naturalist must start his attempt by studying a rock and/or a pile of sand and compose his explanation of agent causality from there. Sadly, we cannot allow the naturalist to have a starting point, such as bacteria, for which there is no naturalistic explanation.
I think that Fulda, like Walsh and the authors of "Naturalizing Agent Causation," think it's good enough to describe what life is, in causal and thermodynamic terms, without worrying about how life got to be that way. I can understand why you think that's irresponsible, but for the time being, I don't see any other way of proceeding: begin from life itself, and hope that maybe the problem of abiogenesis will be solved some day, and try not to worry about it too much until then.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

De Nile . . .kairosfocus_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

VL @42: If one can’t try to discuss a naturalistic explanation of how people might have causation and intentionality without immediately also being expected to describe how life came about, then any reasonable conversation is hopeless.
PM1 @54: I agree. I recently read a very interesting article by Fermin Fulda (“Natural Agency: The Case of Bacterial Cognition).
Sorry guys, but we have to be really strict here, these fake attempts at “naturalization” cannot be allowed. If the naturalist wants to explain agent causality from matter, his starting point must be inanimate matter. The naturalist must start his attempt by studying a rock and/or a pile of sand and compose his explanation of agent causality from there. Sadly, we cannot allow the naturalist to have a starting point, such as bacteria, for which there is no naturalistic explanation.Origenes_{February 8, 2023
February
02
Feb
8
08
2023
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Sad that elaborate philosophical arguments by men seek to obscure or hide obvious truths. And only truth matters, not what is meant to hide or obscure. John 16:13 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." "all the truth" not separates truths for this or that group or truths just for science and truths just for religion - ALL the truth.relatd_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

If one can’t try to discuss a naturalistic explanation of how people might have causation and intentionality without immediately also being expected to describe how life came about, then any reasonable conversation is hopeless.
I agree. I recently read a very interesting article by Fermin Fulda ("Natural Agency: The Case of Bacterial Cognition). He argues for a distinction between constitutive explanations and enabling explanations: constitutive explanations specify what constitutes a phenomenon, allowing us to determine if the criteria for being a phenomenon of a certain kind are satisfied. Enabling explanations specify the causal dynamics needed to realize the phenomenon. On that basis, Fulda argues for an ecological constitutive explanation of agency: an agent has goals relative to the affordances that comprise its environment. This allows us to be realists about teleology by construing teleology as an ecological concept. This is distinct from an examination of the causal dynamics that enable biological agency from being realized.
Bye all, again. Maybe my resolve to stay away will last this time.
I hope you do for your sake, and I hope you don't for my sake.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Obviously off-topic (but it's not like the topic is going to "move forward" due to materialists suddenly having an ontology-changing psychological breakthrough due to the precise chisel of the OP:) Mr. Arrington said:
They know that monism is incoherent.
Depends on the monism.William J Murray_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

FP: "If it can be measured or observed then it is material. If it can’t, then it is immaterial. But, then again, if it can’t be measured or observed then it can’t be said to exist." Yet, according to quantum mechanics, it is immaterial information that is what is constitutive, and is what actualizes, the material realm into being in the first place.
constitutive 1. having the power to establish or give organized existence to something. actualize make real or concrete; give reality or substance to
As John Wheeler stated, "every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits. It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation;"
"I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits. It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." - John Wheeler - “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links” - 1989 https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf
That immaterial information is what constitutive of, and is what actualizes, material particles into being in the first place is fairly easy to see with quantum teleportation experiments. As the following article on quantum teleportation states, “In principle, however, the ’copy’ (atom) can be indistinguishable from the original, (atom that was destroyed)”
Beam me up – Philip Ball – 30 September 2004 Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ’copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original, and the process can take place at the speed of light. So it’s as if the original atom vanishes at one place and reappears elsewhere, sent there at light speed. In other words, this is a form of teleportation. Rainer Blatt and colleagues at the University of Innsbruck, and David Wineland’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, have independently transferred the quantum state of one ion to another. The transfer isn’t yet perfect – the copy is only about three-quarters identical to the original – but it’s significantly better than what any ’copying’ process can achieve without quantum teleportation. And there will surely be better to come. https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/beam-me-up/3004500.article
And as the following article states, “the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.”
Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
And as the following article states, “the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,”
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. https://www.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/19/quantum-teleportation-enters-real-world/#.V-HqWNEoDtR
It is also interesting to note that, since “the original (particle) has to be destroyed” in quantum teleportation because “you can’t ’clone’ a quantum state”, then this teleportation of quantum information, (immaterial information that is telling a ‘new’ particle exactly what to be), also lends fairly strong credence to the Christian’s contention that it is the immaterial soul of a person that is what is actually defining what the basic 'form' of the material body of a person will actually be. As Asher Peres himself, when asked by a journalist if quantum teleportation could transport a person’s soul as well as their body, answered, “No, not the body, just the soul.”
Teleportation is Here, But It’s Not What We Expected – 29 October 2019 Excerpt: In 2005, the obituary of physicist Asher Peres in the magazine Physics Today told us that when a journalist asked him if quantum teleportation could transport a person’s soul as well as their body, the scientist replied: “No, not the body, just the soul.”,,, ,,, teleportation does exist, although in the real world it is quite different from the famous “Beam me up, Scotty!” associated with the Star Trek series. Teleportation in real science began to take shape in 1993 thanks to a theoretical study published by Peres and five other researchers in Physical Review Letters, which laid the foundation for quantum teleportation. ,,, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/teleportation-is-here-but-its-not-what-we-expected/
Verses and quote:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald – Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood – 1892
Supplemental note;
Oct. 2022 – since Darwinian Atheists, as a foundational presupposition of their materialistic philosophy, (and not from any compelling scientific evidence mind you), deny the existence of souls, (and since the materialist’s denial of souls, (and of God), has led (via atheistic tyrants) to so much catastrophic disaster on human societies in the 20th century), then it is VERY important to ‘scientifically’ establish the existence of these ‘souls’ that are of incalculable worth, and that are created equal, before God. https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768496
bornagain77_{February 7, 2023
February
02
Feb
7
07
2023
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Ford Prefect @48,
If it can be measured or observed then it is material. If it can’t, then it is immaterial.
The wave function is a mathematical probability for a particle such as an electron or even a molecule of over 2,000 atoms to spontaneously appear that a specific location in space and in time. The molecule is certainly material, but the fluctuating probability waves (i.e. wavefunctions) have never been claimed by physicists as "material." One can compute the mathematical probability of a particle appearing at a point in space and time, but one cannot directly measure the probability with something like a "probability thermometer." So by your definition, the wavefunctions that determine the likelihood of a particle don't exist. Right?
You are equating unknown cause with supernatural. Gravity has an unknown cause. Is it supernatural?
No, I'm not. Quantum probabilities are not supernatural, but they are, however, immaterial and they nevertheless do exist. -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

VL, try, quantum influences, as we know is a very real phenomenon from the particle beam double slit exercise. Thence, ponder Derek Smith's two tier controller cybernetic loop as a point of departure. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

FP, interference and superposition are well known wave phenomena. Such are manifest with particles at molecular level, but -- as particle double slit exercises show -- cannot be directly observed as the behaviour at once collapses into particle behaviour instead. Put something next to a slit to see where the particles go and they obligingly behave as particles, sneak and switch off the observing device and they revert to wave behaviour. Worse, it occurs when the beam is at a rate implying one particle at a time as a video in a parallel thread shows. It is inferred from its effects and despite many worlds views [which gets into non observables on steroids] the still mainstream Copenhagen interpretation boils down to probability waves doing the interfering and superposition. As for measurability and observability as criteria of existence, logical positivism and its verificationism collapsed due to irretrievable self referential incoherence 50+ years ago. Try, is the criterion of reality you proposed itself observable and/or measurable, as opposed to text carrying the assertion. That extends to your self aware consciousness. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Querius writes:
Is constructive interference between probability waves material or immaterial?
If it can be measured or observed then it is material. If it can’t, then it is immaterial. But, then again, if it can’t be measured or observed then it can’t be said to exist. You are equating unknown cause with supernatural. Gravity has an unknown cause. Is it supernatural?Ford Prefect_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

*sigh* I came back after a few hours hoping (I know, the triumph of hope over experience again) that our materialist friends would have something to say other than "Oh yeah, but what about . . ." At least Chuck is honest enough to admit that he has nothing. That's progress of a sort I suppose. The best the others could do is to try to sneak dualism in through the back door. I suppose that too is progress of a sort. They know that monism is incoherent. When I think about it, I suppose that is just a backdoor way of admitting that the OP is spot on. Thanks for that.Barry Arrington_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Well, bye.AnimatedDust_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Ford Prefect @30 and Viola Lee @31, Is constructive interference between probability waves material or immaterial? -QQuerius_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

I don't want to leave being inaccurately accused of selective quoting. At 38 I wrote, "I have no idea what “However, we all know that the FSCO/I has no natural explanation” means, which I am virtually certain was a direct copy-and paste. At 41, Origenes wrote, "For some reason, you quote me incorrectly. I wrote: “However, we all know that the FSCO/I [b]we encounter in organisms [b] has no natural explanation.” [His bold] I think Origenes added that bolded phrase after I had started working on my reply in my text editor. Perhaps he remembers. Since I copy-and-pasted his quote, there is no way I would have left part of what I read out. Now, really good-bye.Viola Lee_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

VL A paranormal explanation of communication does not count as "paranormal" when the explanation rests on the use of mobile phones. Bye.Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

If one can't try to discuss a naturalistic explanation of how people might have causation and intentionality without immediately also being expected to describe how life came about, then any reasonable conversation is hopeless. Bye all, again. Maybe my resolve to stay away will last this time.Viola Lee_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

VL @
Origenes, your remark is all over the place. The article I linked to does not mention teleology.
I hate to break it to you but the broad umbrella term teleology covers “agent causation” very well.
It is about how an organism can be considered a causal agent.
Yes I know.
I have no idea what “However, we all know that the FSCO/I has no natural explanation” means.
For some reason, you quote me incorrectly. I wrote: "However, we all know that the FSCO/I we encounter in organisms has no natural explanation." Anyway, you must be joking. No one who frequents this forum can write such nonsense with a straight face.
And origin of life research has nothing to do with the topic.
Again, you must be joking. The method in the paper is to use something (life) for which there is no natural explanation (e.g. see the failure of origin of life research) in order to “naturalize” agent causality. You cannot miss my point, about how this is cheating. Right?Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

VL non-responsive, your honor. Thanks for nothing.AnimatedDust_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Materialism is a philosophy not subordinate to scientific methods; Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner argues that, while some philosophical concepts may be logically consistent with present-day quantum mechanics, materialism is not one of them. It is a philosophy and suffers, as most philosophies do, with the definitions curse. Recently on this site, and here today, there were, and are, lengthy useful serious exegeses on such issues as old concepts of materialism compared with modern concepts, which opened the question of whether BA was trailing his coat by using the expression “only another kind” thus busting open comment and inviting materialists into the ring to debate consciousness. At an individual level this is very helpful if one accepts that there will be no knockout punch because the problem of consciousness has given rise to Panpsychism and Hylozoism, each predicated on the evidence-bare philosophic speculation that there is no difference between living and non-living in respect of consciousness; in other words, ALL matter is endowed with a form of consciousness even electrons. This appears to entail that when a person dies the corpse is still sort-of-conscious and the individual bones are now conscious of their altered state. At first read, Panpsychism encounters the hitch is that there is not a single scrap of evidence in support, and no testable hypotheses; it appears to rise no higher than day-dreaming. Nevertheless, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy confidently assures readers that, “Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.” It is nothing of the sort, it is a redoubt of the old materialism and the old/new evolution, a temporary fix while shape-shifting definitions go on. The dispute is as old as Aristotle.Belfast_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Origenes, your remark is all over the place. The article I linked to does not mention teleology. It is about how an organism can be considered a causal agent. I have no idea what "However, we all know that the FSCO/I has no natural explanation" means. And origin of life research has nothing to do with the topic. I'll point back to 29, and have no desire to Gish Gallop over every single possible related topic.Viola Lee_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

AD, see 29.Viola Lee_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @22 You link to a paper with "Naturalising Agent Causation" as its title. In post #4 I discuss a similar paper. In both papers, "naturalization" means identifying teleology in organisms/biological organization. However, we all know that the FSCO/I we encounter in organisms has no natural explanation. For one thing, look at the sorry state of origin of life research. So, that is just cheating, wouldn't you agree?Origenes_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

VL, what is a non-materialist? What is your non-materialistic, non-theistic account of origins?AnimatedDust_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Well, I certainly hope that I am more than my liver. Especially after the 50 years of abuse I have put it through.Ford Prefect_{February 6, 2023
February
02
Feb
6
06
2023
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply