malpensante

i think materialism is dead, for another reason: we now accept that we didn't know in the first place what the definition of "matter" is. or do you have one?

Francois Tremblay

Can you spell "red herring" ? What does the fact that we don't know the fundamental nature of matter yet have to do with materialism being false ? One could retort that the "supernatural" is even less defined, if at all (I've never heard any such definition, anyway).

As long as any other form of metaphysical substrate is found and proven, there is no rational reason to debate the subject. The only reason why the mind-body dichotomy subject is brought up periodically is that people refuse to accept that souls do not exist. That's the whole phobia of it.

Oh, and premise 1 in the argument is a fallacy of composition. But that was pretty obvious I suppose (^_^)

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

boneyard bill

Statement 5 is true. But it merely states what we know or don't know. To defeat materialism, he would have to show that statement 5 CAN'T be true. That is, he would have to provide a logical proof that statement 5 is false.

phaedrus

What is materialism anyhow and why is its validity so important?

excreationist

boneyard bill, the Undercover Elephant has been saying the complete opposite - that statement 5 is true, and therefore materialism is somehow refuted. Maybe you're confused.

Vorkosigan

I do not agree, Franc. I think at least part of the reason is that the innate "theory of mind" that evolution built into us is dualistic in nature. I suspect that is why whatever the take on gods, so many cultures subscribe to some form of dualism when it comes to consciousness.

Michael

xoc

This is fascinating. How can one prove what can't be done? We can prove what can be done, that is easy. But the demand to prove something is impossible is really a cry of faith for the skeptic to prove his position. I can't prove that the dead guy can't stand up and do a jig. But if somebody says he can, who has the burden of proof? All's the skeptic can do is show the dead guy continualy not doing a jig; and perhaps relate to the historical claim that it's never been done before. (forgetting the Resurrection and other resurrections for this example)

Proving 5 is false should be a lot easier than proving the existence of God, as it relates to things that are obviously "apparent" to everyone; the physical and the mental. The material is close at hand and everyone has experience with it. The demand to accept something as true is based here on the "skepticism" that demands the truth prove itself. The intuition of the difference between the "mental" and "physical" is a very primary one, it is more basic than scientific proofs because it involves the "conscious self" that precedes the "conscious" person that applies methods of study and inquiry to the physical world. The materialist demands to throw the apparent reality of the "abstract" into the garbage or as a subset of the physical even though this notion(materialism a notion, not a material in itself) is contrary to the most basic apprehension of existence. How can the scientific method in aspects of matter have greater reliability than the people that must use it and conceive it in the first place?

Since monistic materialism makes the extraordinary claim, it should produce the proof. Thus Descartes' better arguments or Spinoza's dualism (etc.) can be taken out(not to mention Socrates and the forms etc.) and materialism could be lauded.

Vorkosigan

The arguments of Socrates and Descarte are interesting, but irrevelant to the issue of dualism versism monism in the human mind, since neither was able to adduce evidence in support of dualism.

Clearly there is no evidence from any of the sciences of the brain and mind that show dualism to be viable. On the contrary, all evidence indicates that the mind is a function of the brain, just as digestion is a function of the intestines.

The extraordinary claim is on the part of the dualists. What is this other stuff present in the brain? What are the rules that govern its behavior? Where does it reside? What structures of the brain does it interact with? Why does it fail to show up on PET, MRI, CAT or other scans? Does it appear in the mind of Homo Saps, all of Hominini, all of hominidae, all mammals, all minds, or what? What is its purpose?

The materialist evidence is found in hundreds of books, in thousands of journal articles, and in the data, models and methods of dozens of scientific disciplines. So come, give us the positive evidence for the dualist position, xoc.

Michael

NialScorva

Tutomn handled this somewhat, but I'll add my 2 cents none-the-less.
One can't, which is why it's the argument is fallacious. To prove his point, he'd have to prove it impossible, which as you say is impossible. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Again, you shift the burden of proof. With the assumption of constancy, the dead have never danced, and to claim they have bears the burden of proof (perhaps you'd like to show how your supposed examples meet the burden in a non-naturalistic way).

Intuitive means "accept it on my authority". Intuition is *very* often wrong, and is not a reliable means of determining truth. You'll find that science, while using intuition for an initial direction, does not allow intuition as proof or even evidence. This section is just setup for...

another shifting of the burden of proof. Materialism doesn't deny the apparent reality of the abstract, it claims that the apparent reality is merely a manifestation of the the physical. *Then* it presents a model that works. If you'd like to present something that breaks such a model, or even poses a problem, then do so. However, rejecting your intuition is not evidence of anything but your intuition conflicting with our observations.

It can't, which is where a nifty thing called intersubjective confirmation comes in. Dualism suffers the same problem of reliability, only without the advantage of intersubjective confirmation. Feel free to present a model and show me wrong.

And the final shifting of the burden of proof. Toss out a couple philosophers to try to intimidate people, and claim that they have the burden over your position. It don't work. Monistic materialism does have a burden of proof, but not to justify itself over your pet philosophy, rather it has a burden as a valid description of the world that can make predicitons and accurately represent what we see. It seems to meet such a burden. Dualism may or may not meet that burden, but the fact remains that materialism does so without the need for hypothetical mental or spiritual levels.

Francois Tremblay

The burden of proof is on the non-materialist. We merely call "matter" the type of substance that we know today, made of atoms and so on. To pretend there is another, one must show it in some way. As I said, only arguing against materialism does not satisfy the burden of proof requirement.