materialism

[Anonymous No.10394133]

why is materialism frowned upon by sciencelets? don’t they see that it’s a liberating fact that the “objects” around and within us is the only real stuff?

[Anonymous No.10394375]

Materialism is for mindlets.
Minds and ideas are the only real things.
Idealism is the future.

[Anonymous No.10394482]

niggers

[Anonymous No.10394484]

When I perceive a slice of pizza I am struck only with ideas of a pizza-like fashion. For instance, the appearance of cheese, the smell of tomato sauce, and the feeling of hot grease. Nowhere in these ideas is to be found anything material. Of course if there are ideas, then there must be minds to perceive them, so we can see that, as empiricists, we really only need two ontological commitments: ideas exist and minds exist.

Great, so that's out of the way. Now we must ask wherein the source of these ideas lies? After all, given the consistency between my ideas of the world and the apparent consistency between my experiences and the experiences of other minds, it stands to reason that their must be some common source behind them.

Maintaining the ontological simplicity that we already have, there are three possibilities. First, the source of the ideas is my mind. Second, the source of these ideas is some other idea or ideas. Third, the source of these ideas is some other mind.

The first possibility is implausible, for I do not have the mental capacity to imagine the whole world, yet ideas of the world exist even when I'm not think of them. As well, I cannot help but notice that I have no power to change the ideas the strike me. I cannot force myself to perceive a pizza in the way that I perceive my keyboard in front of me. So I am not the source of the ideas.

The second idea is unhelpful since it opens us up to an infinite regress with no real explanation in sight.

That leaves us with only one possibility, that the source of these ideas is some other mind. A very great mind, in fact, that would be capable of imagining all of creation at once. But what could such a mind be besides God? There is nothing else it could be, therefore God exists.

[Anonymous No.10394489]

>>10394484
> inb4 neurons
> inb4 muh Holmesian fallacy, you didn't exclude every possible explanation ever

Explain why as an empiricist I should believe in a material world or that minds are material. My experience commits me to ideas and minds only.

[Anonymous No.10395092]

>>10394484
>pretty fucking gay

[Anonymous No.10395097]

>>10394133
Because materialism is retarded, and interactionist dualism is the only explanation of the world that makes sense.

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

[Anonymous No.10395118]

>>10394482
have you ever even been to pizza hut

[Anonymous No.10395160]

What does /sci/ think of Biocentrism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7-t9p8Zac

[Anonymous No.10395174]

>>10394133
>>10394375
Is there any actual difference between materialism and idealism? Both philosophies are monist. The both say the world is only made of one kind of thing: mind and external world are made of the same kind of thing. Is the only difference what they choose to call it (material or mind)?

[Anonymous No.10395182]

>>10394489
Because animals with minds evolved from animals without minds. Minds are emergent, not fundamental.

[Anonymous No.10396335]

>>10395174
Order of ontological dependence. Mind creates matter or matter creates mind. Relevant in questions like the hard problem of consciousness, in scientific realism when deciding which/when/where/how/why entities exist.

[Anonymous No.10396338]

>>10395182
How is evolution supposed to emerge a mind?

[Anonymous No.10396377]

>>10394489
neurons
plz refute

[Anonymous No.10396395]

>>10394133
I propose a brave new statement that material objects are not important because everything expires. However, as humans whose primary function is to exist, we need objects such as food to exist (i.e., reflect status to other humans, buy more necessary items, and so forth) and we should be content as humans, knowing that it is in our nature to love items and yet that does not signify any material importance?

[Anonymous No.10396406]

wouldn’t this sort of materialistic worldview imply that humans are basically the sickest, most god-like entities ever to exist in the universe, and that we might want to look inward instead of toward attractive but false “truths”?

[Anonymous No.10396411]

>>10395182
how do we know without first understanding the mind?