The science against metaphysical materialism

[modernPrimitive2]

Seems to me the second law of thermodynamics holds and that everything in the world trends toward optimizing its exploitation of energy, including evolution, would provide a pretty strong case against materialism being other than physical: IOW not metaphysical.

I see it the other way. Why have an actual "real" reality when a simulation would suffice?

 

[Juma]

Seems to me the second law of thermodynamics holds and that everything in the world trends toward optimizing its exploitation of energy, including evolution, would provide a pretty strong case against materialism being other than physical: IOW not metaphysical.

I see it the other way. Why have an actual "real" reality when a simulation would suffice?

Because a simulation is a much more complex answer. A simulation requires a reality + simulation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Seems to me the second law of thermodynamics holds and that everything in the world trends toward optimizing its exploitation of energy, including evolution, would provide a pretty strong case against materialism being other than physical: IOW not metaphysical.

I see it the other way. Why have an actual "real" reality when a simulation would suffice?

This seems to be an awfully complicated scenario only useful for those who enjoy serious mental masturbation, not for those who try to make sense of the universe. It combines a couple of the old favorites of the belly-button gazers.

. We can't know anything because we are only a "mind in a jar" imagining the universe (only in this case the mind is on a memory card)

. There is a creator god and we can't know his mind, he can make reality whatever he wishes (only in this case god is the programmer). - yes religion is a philosophy.



Then, if we are simply a simulation, then discussion is a waste of time because you don't really exist and what I think are your responses are simply my own pre-programmed thoughts.

 

[fromderinside]

Then, if we are simply a simulation, then discussion is a waste of time because you don't really exist and what I think are your responses are simply my own pre-programmed thoughts.

Lord Berkeley you've come back!

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I see it the other way. Why have an actual "real" reality when a simulation would suffice?

Because a simulation is a much more complex answer. A simulation requires a reality + simulation.

Haha. Only if you assume materialism. There could only be the simulation.

- - - Updated - - -

Then, if we are simply a simulation, then discussion is a waste of time because you don't really exist and what I think are your responses are simply my own pre-programmed thoughts.

Not if the simulation has AI. But it's a waste of time discussing "what ifs". The point is materialism is a metaphysical position.

 

[Juma]

Because a simulation is a much more complex answer. A simulation requires a reality + simulation.

Haha. Only if you assume materialism. There could only be the simulation.

How?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Haha. Only if you assume materialism. There could only be the simulation.

How?

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

 

[Juma]

How?

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

If there is a simulation there must be something experiencing it and there must be something causing it. Thus there must always be something that is not part of the simulation.

 

[skepticalbip]

How?

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

If there is a simulation there must be something experiencing it and there must be something causing it. Thus there must always be something that is not part of the simulation.

Not necessarily. The simulation and the thing causing and experiencing it could be one thing. In other words a form of monism (which is philosophically more parsimonious). For example, you can imagine having a conversation with someone in your own mind - hence a simulated conversation can happen inside your mind but it is experienced by the same thing that is causing it. (your mind). You see, when you don't limit yourself exclusively to metaphysical materialism you're able to actually think laterally of other possibilities.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

Ok, can you point this out to me?

 

[Juma]

If there is a simulation there must be something experiencing it and there must be something causing it. Thus there must always be something that is not part of the simulation.

Not necessarily. The simulation and the thing causing and experiencing it could be one thing. In other words a form of monism (which is philosophically more parsimonious). For example, you can imagine having a conversation with someone in your own mind - hence a simulated conversation can happen inside your mind but it is experienced by the same thing that is causing it. (your mind). You see, when you don't limit yourself to metaphysical materialism you're able to actually think...

A mind cannot exist without (some sort of) a brain. So you are wrong, again.

Youhave way to much trust in scenarios that you can dream up. There are limits to the power of rationality.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Not necessarily. The simulation and the thing causing and experiencing it could be one thing. In other words a form of monism (which is philosophically more parsimonious). For example, you can imagine having a conversation with someone in your own mind - hence a simulated conversation can happen inside your mind but it is experienced by the same thing that is causing it. (your mind). You see, when you don't limit yourself to metaphysical materialism you're able to actually think...

A mind cannot exist without (some sort of) a brain. So you are wrong, again.

Youhave way to much trust in scenarios that you can dream up. There are limits to the power of rationality.

Again, you're assuming metaphysical materialism. You are saying that because science has discovered a correlation between the mind and the brain, the brain is therefore the cause of the mind. This is different from correlation (which is all that science has proven). So you could have a scenario where the mind is the primordial substance and it uses "physical" brains as part of it's simulation.

I'm not saying it is this way, we could very well live in an exclusively material universe. I'm not saying we do or don't - I'm merely using these alternates to point out the metaphysical nature (faith-based position) of materialism.

 

[Juma]

A mind cannot exist without (some sort of) a brain. So you are wrong, again.

Youhave way to much trust in scenarios that you can dream up. There are limits to the power of rationality.

Again, you're assuming metaphysical materialism. You are saying that because science has discovered a correlation between the mind and the brain, the brain is therefore the cause of the mind. This is different from correlation (which is all that science has proven).

You seem curiously uneducated. Science has proven much more than simply a correlation between mind and brain.

So you could have a scenario where the mind is the primordial substance and it uses "physical" brains as part of it's simulation.

No. The mind is not a single entity: We know that the mind consits of many parts and we know that different parts of the brain are responsible for different parts of the brain.

I'm not saying it is this way, we could very well live in an exclusively material universe. I'm not saying we do or don't - I'm merely using these alternates to point out the metaphysical nature (faith-based position) of materialism.

And you are dead wrong. Materialism depends entirely on evidence. There is no faith involved.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

Ok, can you point this out to me?

Sure. You are supposedly arguing for us living in a simulation with absolutely nothing else in the universe to support that simulation (only the mental simulation itself exists). You have absolutely no idea and can't support how that could be as you just admitted. You even tried offering a wiki link to "idealism" that didn't support your argument unless you want to pick one of the many arguments offered, ignoring the others, in that link and do a hell of a lot of justification to squeeze your simulation assertion into it. You just make assertions without thinking them through, apparently assuming that, if challenged, you can make make up some hand-waving bull shit to justify the baseless unconsidered assertion you made.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You seem curiously uneducated. Science has proven much more than simply a correlation between mind and brain.

So it proves causation? Give me an example then.

And you are dead wrong. Materialism depends entirely on evidence. There is no faith involved.

Yeah you keep saying that but you never back up your statements with anything rational other than "you are wrong".

 

[Juma]

So it proves causation? Give me an example then.

Proves? You have a very skewed view of knowledge.

Yeah you keep saying that but you never back up your statements with anything rational other than "you are wrong".

I'm not here to teach you about the scientific method.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Hmm...well philosophical idealism would be one way in which a simulation could happen without a fundamental material reality. I'm sure there must be others but I haven't really explored all the possibilities because that is not my area of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

The type of Idealism I'm most familiar with is Transcendental Idealism which I have expounded a great deal on in several posts, even photoshopping some lovely images together and coming up with several thought experiments to get the point across, however, it's not classical Idealism which posits the metaphysical nature of reality as "mind" because as Transcendental Idealism points out, it can't be known. So I see classical Idealism as being as metaphysical as materialism. This is precisely my interest - the epistemological gap - not to posit what the thing-in-itself is as materialism does. I'm merely using the example of a simulation to demonstrate that. The point is for me an important distinction because it changes the assumptions we make about reality and we're less likely to make mistakes in judging what empirical results actually mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Proves? You have a very skewed view of knowledge.

Yeah you keep saying that but you never back up your statements with anything rational other than "you are wrong".

I'm not here to teach you about the scientific method.

I'm familiar with the scientific method. Thank you. It would just be nice if you actually said something with a rational or factual basis or entered into an actual interesting discussion rather than simply relying on name calling.

 

[ryan]

In line with my philosophical attempt to explain the errors of materialism, this may be more to the liking of those with a more scientific bent:

Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects.

Emphasis mine.

Article here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

You can use science to completely kill materialism but not in this way. There are some quantum theories like the many worlds interpretation that completely restores classical mechanics.

The way you can rebut materialism using science is by materialism's inability to be falsified. How could you ever sense immaterial that couldn't be sensed with material? What if ghosts only allow us to interact with them when they want?

Science just isn't equipped to deal with such issues.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

The type of Idealism I'm most familiar with is Transcendental Idealism which I have expounded a great deal on in several posts, even photoshopping some lovely images together and coming up with several thought experiments to get the point across, however, it's not classical Idealism which posits the metaphysical nature of reality as "mind" because as Transcendental Idealism points out, it can't be known. So I see classical Idealism as being as metaphysical as materialism. This is precisely my interest - the epistemological gap - not to posit what the thing-in-itself is as materialism does. I'm merely using the example of a simulation to demonstrate that. The point is for me an important distinction because it changes the assumptions we make about reality and we're less likely to make mistakes in judging what empirical results actually mean.

"Transcendental Idealism points out, it can't be known." Which should be a kick in the ass for anyone who is actually trying to use reason, telling them that it is nonsense. It is the same "reasoning" used by religious nuts - "it can't be known or understood therefore that proves that it is."

You aren't talking philosophy. Philosophy is reasoning. You are talking religious faith that can't be rationally argued.

 

[Juma]

Your link doesn't really support your assertion.

I've noticed that you don't really think through the requirements, meaning, or the necessary logical consequences of your assertions. My understanding is that is what philosophy is supposed to be about, not about just making unthinking assertions and hand-waving.

The type of Idealism I'm most familiar with is Transcendental Idealism which I have expounded a great deal on in several posts, even photoshopping some lovely images together and coming up with several thought experiments to get the point across, however, it's not classical Idealism which posits the metaphysical nature of reality as "mind" because as Transcendental Idealism points out, it can't be known. So I see classical Idealism as being as metaphysical as materialism. This is precisely my interest - the epistemological gap - not to posit what the thing-in-itself is as materialism does. I'm merely using the example of a simulation to demonstrate that. The point is for me an important distinction because it changes the assumptions we make about reality and we're less likely to make mistakes in judging what empirical results actually mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Proves? You have a very skewed view of knowledge.

Yeah you keep saying that but you never back up your statements with anything rational other than "you are wrong".

I'm not here to teach you about the scientific method.

I'm familiar with the scientific method. Thank you. It would just be nice if you actually said something with a rational or factual basis or entered into an actual interesting discussion rather than simply relying on name calling.

Name calling? When have I ever?
And i have given a lot of arguments that you simply ignore.

I have stopped discussing with you. Please respect that and do not post another post in my dirdction.