/lit/ - Literature

Well what's your proof of it? Show me the source of consciousness

>>15058353
I can't so instead I'll just post this brilliant anon's steelmanning of it instead.

>>15058361
my brain

>>15058361
>Show me the source of consciousness
okay see >>15058370

>>15058370
Too long, did not read ;)

>>15058379
Doesn’t work

>(1) If materialism is true, then our brains only evolved to help us survive
>(2) If our brains only evolved to help us survive, then they probably aren't much good at grasping what the world is 'really' like
>(3) If our brains aren't much good at grasping what the world is 'really' like, then the theories they come up with about what the world is 'really' like probably aren't true
>(4) Materialism is a theory our brains came up with about what the world is 'really' like
>Therefore (5) if materialism is true, then materialism probably isn't true
which is equivalent to
>Either materialism isn't true, or materialism probably isn't true

>>15058718
but what if evolving to help us survive is the same as grasping what the world is really like?

>>15058353
>matter is eternal
>big bang theory

>>15058370
>steelmanning
It's called the principal of charity aka being charitable. I hate skeptic-debate-me youtubers so much.

>>15059127
>what if evolving to help us survive is the same as grasping what the world is really like?
Good objection. I respond with:
>(1) If our brains evolved to help us grasp what the world is 'really' like, then you would expect people to be broadly in agreement about what the world is really like, since they have broadly similar brains
>(2) There is no such broad agreement
>Therefore (3) our brains did not evolve to help us grasp what the world is 'really' like
I support (2) by appealing to the histories of philosophy and religion, and also the variety of opinions on /lit/.

>>15058718
Yeah, I'm not seeing how you arrive at (2). If our brains evolve to help us survive, then being able to more accurately navigate and manipulate our circumstances is adaptive. You're also framing knowledge and perception as all-or-nothing propositions, which is silly. We don't need to be omniscient to perceive -more- of what the world is really like than a blob of algae does.

There's also no reason why our brain-evolution must follow an exclusively 'world fidelity' path... Multifarious and seemingly at-odds capacities could evolve, and this is exactly what we see. We have the capacity to apply logic and delve beyond mere intuition and illusion, but we also have the capacity for self-deception to avoid unecessary stress and demotivation.

>>15058353
It's irrefutable
Didnt read >>15058370

>>15058353
>dualism

Filtered

we begin with our perceptions, and we define things in terms of them. the brain, or any other object, is a bundle of perceptions, being a subset of the set of all of our perceptions. since the brain, or any other object, is only a subset of our perceptions, the set of all of our perceptions cannot be reduced to the brain, or any other object. materialism disproved.

>>15058379
name one scientist who has ever found a material basis for conscious experience, I'll wait

>>15059550
Yeah, (2) is a weak spot.
>If our brains evolve to help us survive, then being able to more accurately navigate and manipulate our circumstances is adaptive
is certainly true. But I'm not sure how you get
>You're also framing knowledge and perception as all-or-nothing propositions, which is silly
though; we might have lots of 'vague' knowledge, but in the case of materialism, or anything like the belief that
>The only things that exist are either material things, or reduce to material things
well, it's either true or it isn't.
>There's also no reason why our brain-evolution must follow an exclusively 'world fidelity' path...
I think that's true, but that looks like an argument *for* (2), since it's a reason to be sceptical about some of the claims our brains come up with; especially if they
>have the capacity for self-deception to avoid unecessary stress and demotivation

The thought behind (2) is that our brains might have evolved to help us 'accurately navigate and manipulate our circumstances', but they didn't evolve to theorise grandly about 'the nature of reality' (whatever that means). Really I want to say our brains didn't evolve to do metaphysics. It doesn't necessarily follow that we're bad at metaphysics; but I think in fact we are, and the history of metaphysics supports me. In that case, we should be sceptical of any metaphysical claims our brains come up with. But materialism (or physicalism, or whatever you like) is a metaphysical claim if anything is, since it's a claim about what 'reality' is ultimately like: the claim that everything is material, or reduces to matter. So if the world is just matter in motion, and we evolved solely in order to navigate that matter in motion, then we have no reason to believe it.

>>15059765
Well, I think the question itself is somewhat of a trick, since it is never specified what 'non-material' actually is (or even could be). It's a mere negative claim disguised as profundity. If anti-physicalists had specific claims or a competitive explanatory/predictive framework, then there'd be something to talk about. As things are, it just seems like some people get stuck between a need for comforting beliefs and an unwillingness to be satisfied with faith alone.

Who knows... We might be the pinnacle specimens of reality-conjecture. Logic as a methodology allows us to think critically even about our own intuitions as agents; the tools we wield can transcend our evolutionary biases. It is a given that our perception is substantially limited, but it doesn't follow that we therefore don't apprehend anything of what reality is 'really like'. There is an implicit all-or-nothing framing to your treatment of perception which isn't hard to recognize if you allow yourself to do so.

>>15059623
It's the only basis with any evidence behind it, however incomplete that evidence may be.

>>15058353
Aristotle states that the individual parts of a Whole aren't equivalent to the Whole. The same ingredients and organs that make up a human wouldn't necessarily make the person when lumped together. Therefore, there needs to be an Order that precedes it in order for the whole to exist

>>15058353

Where is your materialist proof that materialism is fundamentally true -- oh wait you don't have any.

>>15059463
The problem with this argument is that it interpolates all areas of knowledge into a single category, while it is clear there’s an enormous difference in the epistemic quality of different types of knowledge. For example, while there’s an enormous difference in human belief regarding areas of cognition related to social behavior, such as politics, religion, morality, and the like, there’s an outstanding consensus regarding beliefs regarding the empirical world that are produced by scientific methodology.

If one changes premise (1) to only include cognitive mechanisms that are relevant in producing belief in materialism, one finds that the arguments falls apart. There’s overwhelming consensus about natural sciences when humans are given the same input, and the cognitive mechanisms that produce belief in materialism are largely the same analytical thinking that produces belief in scientific facts.

While this line of argument does seem to undermine the trust a materialist has in certain areas of his cognition, it is not strong enough to be a defeater for all types of knowledge.

>>15059998
true, but then again, you would have to accept that leap of faith, meaning that materialism would only be real in practicality rather then in theory, thus innately anti-materiel.

>>15060117
Is there proof for any particular theory?

>>15058718
1 : you clearly haven't understood materialism
2 : yes
3 : it's not a 'brain' theory it's science, reproductible and logical
4 : ok if you want
5 : your premise is fucked :D

>>15060117
it's based on science
and like EVERYTHING in science, you don't proove things, you try to proove that they're wrong
therefore no one needs to show that materialism is true, but you have to find one (1) valid and reproductible example that it's not (protip : you can't)

>>15059998
>it is never specified what 'non-material' actually is (or even could be)
That's true, but I think the same applies to 'matter' or 'physical' stuff. What is it, really? Where does it come from? It's the most mysterious stuff in the world (maybe the only stuff in the world), and we only fail to notice its mystery because we're so familiar with it (we're made out of it, after all). It's like the Victorian 'joke'
>What is mind? No matter
>What is matter? Never mind
If we're asked for a definition of matter, we might talk about fundamental forces or quarks or whatever, but in the end all we can do is point. (Which is more than we can do for mind, but then, how could you think there's no such thing as mind? What would Dennett think it with?)

>There is an implicit all-or-nothing framing to your treatment of perception which isn't hard to recognize if you allow yourself to do so.
Certainly my use of the law of excluded middle in this question is 'all or nothing': either materialism is true, or it isn't. It can't be 'a little bit' true. But how do you think this applies to 'my treatment of perception'? In fact, how do you say I treat perception? The question of whether materialism is true or not can't be decided just by appealing to sights, sounds, smells and so on (not without assuming that materialism is true in advance, anyway).

>>15060011
What is the basis with evidence? Because material science found no evidence of consciousness

>>15060171
You fucking refuted yourself retard. Science doesnt prove things PERIOD. They only prove things not to be the case. Therefor Materialism cannot be shown to be true, only that it is likely in practical application.

>>15060132
>The problem with this argument is that it interpolates all areas of knowledge into a single category
I'd say they fall under the category 'knowledge', but I'm not sure where you think politics and morality come in to the argument. The histories of philosophy and religion show there is no consensus at all about what 'reality' is ultimately like: is it just matter, or just mind, or both, or something else, or what? It's true that
>There’s overwhelming consensus about natural sciences
but this is hardly a 'cognitive mechanism' that (by itself) leads to materialism. The natural sciences tell us how matter behaves; they don't tell us it's the only thing that exists.
>While this line of argument does seem to undermine the trust a materialist has in certain areas of his cognition, it is not strong enough to be a defeater for all types of knowledge.
It's good that it doesn't do what it's not meant to do.

>>15060171
Qualia

>>15060199
I know, the thread was about "disproving materialism"

>>15060267
Well, then there is none. Like there is no disproving god or Idealism. In cases like these, I believe its best to go for a generalist thing that incorporates the possibility. Idealism can encompase materialism, the latter cannot incorporate the former.

>>15060153
I define 'materialism' as the belief that
>The only things that exist are either material things, or reduce to material things
What would you say materialism is?
>it's not a 'brain' theory it's science, reproductible and logical
Is the claim that
>The only things that exist are either material things, or reduce to material things
'science', or is it just presupposed by some scientists? And how would you 'reproduct' it?

>>15060243
Trope theory

I'm actually a Solipsist so you can all suck my dick

>>15060309
Who are you talking to, yourself?

>>15060153
>3 : it's not a 'brain' theory it's science, reproductible and logical
Science is a brain theory you stupid fucking moron lmao

>>15058718
Based

>>15060289
you can actually "disprove" god with scepticism tools like Ockam's Razor
>>15060299
by that i meant it works like science ; it's a theory, therefore considered true until you prove it's not with reproductible and valid proof
>>15060324
nope science is a method to create knowledge

>>15060241
>I'd say they fall under the category 'knowledge'
They don't. Different types of beliefs are produced by different cognitive mechanisms. The tools that your brain evolved to produced beliefs like causation and relation between quantities are vastly different from the tools used to produce beliefs where there's more disagreement, such as political beliefs or religion.

>but this is hardly a 'cognitive mechanism' that (by itself) leads to materialism.
But it IS the mechanism that materialists use to justify their worldview. Analytic philosophy uses the same areas of human cognition as natural sciences, disagreements humans have in other areas of inquiry are not really relevant to the epistemic justification of naturalism.

>It's good that it doesn't do what it's not meant to do.
It has to. If it fails to be a defeater to the belief 'My cognition is sufficiently reliable to have justified true beliefs about reality', then the materialist can keep trusting his cognition and, thus, his belief in materialism.

>>15060342
>nope science is a method to create knowledge
Knowledge exists only in a brain and is thus a brain theory you dumb fucking retard lmao

>>15058379
prove it

>>15058353
The way that one disproves materialism is not through logic, but in realizing that materialism has a limited view on reality, nature and man. You EXPAND people's views, that's how materialism is disproved.

Also enlightenment materialism was disproved 200 years ago by plenty of philosophers.

>>15060349
maybe look for "theory" definition

>>15060342
Well if materialism, the belief that
>The only things that exist are either material things, or reduce to material things
, is 'science', there must be some scientific evidence for it, and probably some experiments too. Tell us about 'em.

>>15060370
Maybe look for the definition of empiricism as an epistemology and what science actually is you stupid shit for brains moron lmao

>>15060376
i didn't say it's science, i said it's based on science ; if you want me to rephrase : it works the same way

>>15060384
This. People dont even know what science is and use it as a catch all term for knowledge.

Wait just so we're clear are we talking about dialectical materialism?

>>15060444
stop being cringe dude, this didn't happen in this thread

>>15060348
>Different types of beliefs are produced by different cognitive mechanisms. The tools that your brain evolved to produced beliefs like causation and relation between quantities are vastly different from the tools used to produce beliefs where there's more disagreement, such as political beliefs or religion
Sure, but so what? And all knowledge must at least come under the category of 'knowledge', otherwise we'd have to say that there's some knowledge that isn't knowledge.
>But it IS the mechanism that materialists use to justify their worldview
But is the justification successful? 'The natural sciences deal with matter, therefore matter is all that exists.' That's not the (alleged) justification, is it?
>If it fails to be a defeater to the belief 'My cognition is sufficiently reliable to have justified true beliefs about reality', then the materialist can keep trusting his cognition and, thus, his belief in materialism.
So far as the argument in >>15058718 goes, what defeats scepticism is abandoning the antecedent of the first premise.

>>15058353
C'mon brah

>>15060424
How's it based on science?

>>15060140
As a physicalist I lean on consistency, not faith. You may now make the Humean criticism that I merely have 'faith' that empirical consistencies will persist, but I will rejoin by pointing out that my belief is contingent upon evidence. In other words, if the consistently demonstrable relations of our existence were to change (and I could survive that), then I'd adapt my knowledge accordingly. This is completely unlike someone having faith in vague and non-demonstrable claims; indeed I think that 'faith' is characterized by belief in spite of evidence, not contingent upon it.

>>15060454
No, ontological materialism, as in the OP, that all that exists is fundamentally the "monad of material" and everything else are the various patterns that the different arrangements of that "Monad of material" can be made into.

>>15060485
objective reality doesn't exist bro

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

>>15060467
>Sure, but so what? And all knowledge must at least come under the category of 'knowledge', otherwise we'd have to say that there's some knowledge that isn't knowledge.
I don’t think you’re getting it. Evolution did not produce all belief-forming mechanisms the same way, so while some parts of our cognitions may be particularly faulty, other may be surprisingly reliable.

> But is the justification successful?
That’s a separate discussion. The point is that you try to undermine the cognition that produced that justification (and by extension that knowledge) by appealing to disagreement among humans. My case is that the argument fails in this instance.

>>15059463

the actual noumenal truth is inaccessible to humans anyway. in that case I think a fair definition of truth to the extent anyone gives a fuck would be the understanding that materialistic evolution has enabled. and our understand of the world is very similar - we see, perceive and intuit things largely in the same ways, don't we?

>>15060485
At this point we are arguing semantics. I was referring to faith in the Kantian sense, not the common one. As in faith of a potential, unassured reality regardless of evidence for and against. "I have faith that my mailman will deliver the package by 9 like he always does."

and dont confuse me with>>15060502
Im for all intents and purposes a Humean.

>>15058718
2 is problematic, regardless of our perceptions our lives depend on our interactions with the world as it is, so our brain has a good evolutionary reason to have a good (or sufficient) grasp of the real.

>>15058353
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>15059463
There is broad agreement on a perceptual level, the disagreements come from abstract reasoning about ethics and abstract objects.

>If materialism is true, then it's gay.

There, wasn't too hard

>>15060543
Except that if your mailman has indeed always delivered the package by 9, then this history does constitute a form of evidence for. There may not be a certainty to be had, but nor is there a disregard for evidence which would indicate faith.

>>15060526
No, I'm fine with
>Evolution did not produce all belief-forming mechanisms the same way, so while some parts of our cognitions may be particularly faulty, other may be surprisingly reliable
My premise (2) is to the effect that, though we might have evolved to navigate life more or less successfully, we certainly didn't evolve to produce metaphysical grand theories, of which materialism is one. But if our minds are no more than patterns of bits of matter reproducing themselves - that is, if materialism is true - then all we have to go in is our unreliably-evolved metaphysical intuition.

>That’s a separate discussion
No, it seems to me that the justification of materialism is relevant in a thread about whether materialism is true or not.
>you try to undermine the cognition that produced that justification (and by extension that knowledge) by appealing to disagreement among humans
Lack of agreement on classic metaphysical questions - such as whether matter is the only thing that exists - is, I think, pretty good evidence that we didn't evolve to do metaphysics very well. So if all we have to go on is our evolution-given lack of propensity for metaphysics, then we should be sceptical about whatever we come up with - including materialism.

>>15060559
Our brains evolved to help us avoid getting killed, not to settle metaphysical questions. If all we are are chunks of matter navigating a material world, then we have no way of settling such questions...
>>15060526
>>15060559
Boys it's well past my bed-time, and I'm going for my state-approved essential shopping trip later. I hope the thread's still up!

>>15060502
That's full of holes and very much open to debate. There's far more reason to be skeptical of free will and locality than objective reality.

>>15060616
I was giving an opposite example to contrast the anti-evidence based one you gave. Faith incorporates both.
> holding-to-be-true on a subjectively sufficient
ground with consciousness of doubt.

>>15060675
>holding-to-be-true on a subjectively sufficient ground with consciousness of doubt.
Fuck 4chan auto pasted.

>>15060668
no, there is no reason to be skeptical of locality

>>15060617
>My premise (2) is to the effect that, though we might have evolved to navigate life more or less successfully, we certainly didn't evolve to produce metaphysical grand theories, of which materialism is one.
We didn’t evolve “to” do anything, there’s no telos in evolution. It is up to you to make the case that evolution produced a brain that’s highly unreliable regarding the cognitive faculties that produce belief in materialism. You’re not even close of doing that.

> No, it seems to me that the justification of materialism is relevant in a thread about whether materialism is true or not.
Your argument is about epistemology, so that’s what we’re discussing.

>Lack of agreement on classic metaphysical questions
Most contemporary philosophers agree with materialism.

>>15060697
>We didn’t evolve “to” do anything
Well we evolved to survive if nothing else, although I don't believe I talked about purpose at all.

>Your argument is about epistemology
The conclusion of my argument is a metaphysical claim:
>Either materialism isn't true, or materialism probably isn't true

>It is up to you to make the case that evolution produced a brain that’s highly unreliable regarding the cognitive faculties that produce belief in materialism
My case is based on:
(1) belief in materialism has no survival-value
(2) belief in materialism is in no way implied by the natural sciences
(3) belief in materialism is historically a minority view, although it is fashionable among the subset of currently-living people we are pleased to call 'philosophers'.

Goddammit, I'm off to bed! Thanks lads.

>>15060617
Sure, one of philosophy's essential lessons is that it is always advisable to cultivate a reserve of skepticism. This doesn't change the fact however, that there's no other game in town (which doesn't rely on faith/negative claims) but physicalism.

>>15060369
You realize that your supposedly non-logical alternative is framed in logical terms right? You're still playing the logic game, just very poorly.

>>15060176
At least we can point to examples of what we consider to be physical, examples that can be investigated. Can you do the same for the 'non-physical'? Does mystery or incompleteness of knowledge really undermine physicalism to the extent that it's a completely empty negative classifier like 'non-physical'? Obviously not.

Your framing does not give due consideration to degrees of apprehending reality; it relies heavily upon a dichotomous intuition of reality and perception — of subjectivity and objectivity — being discrete from eachother. Why can't increased sensory capacities only possibly result in increased apprehension of reality? By what objective standard are we not very good at metaphysical conjecture?

>>15060696
I disagree. There are some observations which would be elegantly explained by the possibility of non-local variables... Which isn't to say I'm convinced of such a possibility, just that there's more indication for it than there is for a non-objective base reality.

>>15058353
Prove materialism, if you can

>tfw there are people who actually oppose objective material reality
>tfw these people will pull out all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid empirical observable reality
>tfw people think that materialism can ever be disproven

>>15061000
except of course its the opposite, there is literally not a single piece of "evidence" of "objective reality" or "empirical observation" and most pondering and logic shows there is no such thing

>>15061034
I think he might be shitposting anon, notice the coomer cthulhu

>>15058353
Can't prove it, can't disprove it (yet).
But read this:
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/the-reign-of-uncertainty/

>>15061000
show me the visible consciousness