Materialism: empirical hypothesis or dogma?

[Marcus]

I was scanning an NDE site and found the following:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Second, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis—that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis—that evidence is not relevant for its truth).

What do you think about it? Is materialism a dogma or an empirical hypothesis?

[Ool]

It’s dogma. That’s why it’s an “-ism.”

The empirical hypothesis is called “classical mechanics” and is a branch of physics.

[fonmaneal]

I don't know about all of that.
I am a ghost, controlling a meat puppet.
So the other ghosts are fools, if they will let others convince them they are just meatpuppets.:)

[Monte314]

If one relies exclusively on the "scientific method" to investigate your question, she will discover that materialism is not "falsifiable", since science *begins* with materialism as an assumption.

A theory that is not falsifiable is not scientific. Therefore, materialism is dogma.

[Marcus Brutus]

I think materialism is logically obvious:
To exist, a thing needs to consist of some sort of substance, whatever it may be. This substance then can be said to be "matter". Thus everything that exists has matter.

For how else could something exist that does not have substance. What else could constitute existence? Perhaps one might hold that an idea exists. But get rid of all the brains, books, computers or whatever that hold that idea and does it still exist? Where would it exist and how? Does every unrealised potentiality exist (as a concept/idea), or is it the realising of the potentiality that causes it to exist? I am of the latter opinion.

[Monte314]

[quote=Marcus Brutus;134676]To exist, a thing needs to consist of some sort of substance, whatever it may be. This substance then can be said to be "matter". [quote]

-------

petitio principii: having assumed the conclusion, we may use it in its own proof.

[Marcus Brutus]

Ok... if we assume that the universe has a given set of dimensions, for something to exist, at least within the universe, must it not have a location among these dimensions? And to have a position within a dimensional framework, I find it hard to see any imaginable, feasiable way such a position can be acquired without some form of substance. Indeed, what seperates the concept of "substance" from "being"? On what basis should I assume that "being" or "existence" implies anything more than what can be reduced to substance?

[thod]

I am a ghost, controlling a meat puppet.

Surprising then that damage to the meat of the brain is able to effect the ghost. The personalty of people with brain damage or even something like dementia should not change. Even alcohol consumption, which I am sure you have tried, is able to effect the ghost. If the there was the separation such should not happen.

On what basis should I assume that "being" or "existence" implies anything more than what can be reduced to substance?

The planet Uranus was discovered in 1781. Before this time the planet Uranus did not exist. Equally the world was flat for most of its existence, its only when people realized it was round that it became so.

[Marcus]

Surprising then that damage to the meat of the brain is able to effect the ghost. The personalty of people with brain damage or even something like dementia should not change. Even alcohol consumption, which I am sure you have tried, is able to effect the ghost. If the there was the separation such should not happen.

Not really. If the bridge of a ship gets damaged then the captain (who is a separate entity from the ship) loses control over the ship.

[thod]

Not really. If the bridge of a ship gets damaged then the captain (who is a separate entity from the ship) loses control over the ship.

Yet he remains the captain and damage to the ship does cause him to believe he is a 12foot tall chicken. If your thoughts and beliefs can be changed by damage then we have to ask what it is to be you. If this ghosts exists outside of all the properties that you associate with yourself we have no basis for saying it exists at all. Of course this is the soul argument from theology.

[Marcus]

Yet he remains the captain and damage to the ship does cause him to believe he is a 12foot tall chicken.

Alcohol never had that effect on me. :)

If some drug can make that effect then you can consider it as something distorting your perception. Like you are remote controlling the ship and your radar has a malfunction. You could see big Zeppelins flying on the radar which does not exist.

[Monte314]

Ok... if we assume that the universe has a given set of dimensions, for something to exist, at least within the universe, must it not have a location among these dimensions? And to have a position within a dimensional framework, I find it hard to see any imaginable, feasiable way such a position can be acquired without some form of substance. Indeed, what seperates the concept of "substance" from "being"? On what basis should I assume that "being" or "existence" implies anything more than what can be reduced to substance?

Trying to hang a materialistic philosophy on space and time is fraught with peril. You run into all kinds of picky questions, like:

1.) Does energy exist? The Earth Moon system has potential energy; where is it "located"? Since it has "substance", can you tell me how much it weighs?

2.) Does the number pi exist? Which "dimensional framework" is it in?

3.) Does love exist? What is the density of its "substance"?

4.) Does your consciousness exist? If so, what is its volume?

5.) Does any particular electron exist? By Heisenberg, it has no definate "position".

You can be a materialist without insisting that material be "substantial", occupy space, or have a location.

(But who cares? Materialism is a bankrupt philosophy on other grounds.)

[Marcus Brutus]

1.) Does energy exist? The Earth Moon system has potential energy; where is it "located"? Since it has "substance", can you tell me how much it weighs?
Yes energy does it exist - but only so long as matter exists. Energy is very much a property of matter; gravity, for example, involves the manner through which matter curves the spacetime dimensions around it. You will have to forgive my rather inept attempt at explanation, i am no physicist, however is the existence of energy as a property of substances relating to other substances untenable?

2.) Does the number pi exist? Which "dimensional framework" is it in?
No, the "number pi" does not physically exist (unless someone manages to right down the precise number). There is a ratio that relates a circle's radius to its circumference, but does this ratio physically exist? No. An approximation of pi does i suppose exist (to a trillion decimal places), but no the real value of pi does not. Convince me that it does.

3.) Does love exist? What is the density of its "substance"?
I suppose love exists insofar as certain neurons fire in the brain in a certain way in certain situations. But love is just another way of saying "brain process X". Brain Process X, that i can show to you does exist.

4.) Does your consciousness exist? If so, what is its volume?
As above; consciousness exists insofar as you have brain processes. Indeed, i think it is quite plausible that a sensation is exactly the same as a brain process.

5.) Does any particular electron exist? By Heisenberg, it has no definate "position".
At Lund university, Sweden, in 2008 the first video images of an electron were taken (they used some sort of laser). The found that it takes 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an attom. I think Heisenberg was more on about that it was impossible to know that exact position and momentum at the same time... but again you will have to forgive me, physics is not my strong suit.

[Marcus]

Where in the space is the information concerning quantum entanglement is stored?

[athenian200]

Hmm... I'd say it depends on the person holding it.

If people are willing to listen to arguments refuting it and hold it tentatively, then it's hypothesis. If they don't, then it's dogma.

[Ool]

I think materialism is logically obvious:
To exist, a thing needs to consist of some sort of substance, whatever it may be. This substance then can be said to be "matter". Thus everything that exists has matter.

Well, I wouldn’t call it “substance” but “self-repeating pattern.” And it needn’t have matter-like properties, although if it doesn’t it becomes confusing—particularly when patterns not only repeat but multiply.

Basically you can consider the empirical experience of the constancy of matter as a special form of a self-repeating pattern, following a certain set of constraints in which properties we can consistently measure as “mass” and/or “energy” never increase and never diminish and certain patterns of mass/energy distribution that are formed are very stable, others quite ephemeral, and still others in a predictable flux…

But I think you’re making a mistake if you think that, just because you’ve discovered a pattern of mass and energy preservation that you’ll never find a phenomenon breaking that phenomenon. You can’t really count on anything in an infinite Universe…





Ool added to this post, 4 minutes and 53 seconds later...

1.) Does energy exist? The Earth Moon system has potential energy; where is it "located"? Since it has "substance", can you tell me how much it weighs?

Actually I can tell you how much it weighs (or how much inertia it has), based on present physical theories, because of E=mc²…

[Monte314]

Actually I can tell you how much it weighs (or how much inertia it has), based on present physical theories, because of E=mc²…

After a fashion, yes. But since time and energy are complimentary quantities (wrt uncertainty), many would say that they are *actually* indeterminate. My encouragement to the poster, who is trying to support materialism by appealing to the notion of "substance", is to look for substance that is more... substantial.

This was the real essence of my comment: that, as a materialist, hanging your hat on space and time is bad for your ontology, and bad for your hat.

[Evil Eye]

The "empirical hypothesis" idea follows quite neatly from Logical Positivism- "Objects" are simply a theory which can be weakly verified.

[zibber]

(Possibly off-topic, although referring directly to the first post.)

I was scanning an NDE site and found the following:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That article is biased as hell from the get-go. It's so tedious, but people who have some reason to believe in the supernatural (those who were raised to be religious, those who think they had a supernatural experience like "NDE") are always stumbling over themselves to discount science, empiricism, materialism and the like. The sad thing is that big bad scientists are making strides in explaining "NDE"s as simple neural tricks. There have actually already been simulated out-of-body experiences induced by merely stimulating a particular region of the brain electrically. Why isn't this enough information for us to be able assume NDEs and the like can ultimately be scientifically explained? I'd guess that this would somehow undermine the meaning or value of these experiences to those who've experienced them, in their minds, to see them explained away in terms of neural events, but I'm not sure why that would have to be the case.

Monte, love and consciousness are emergent. You don't have to resort to that to undermine materialism.


This was the real essence of my comment: that, as a materialist, hanging your hat on space and time is bad for your ontology, and bad for your hat.

Who really does, though? I'd call myself a materialist, but if I had any convincing reason to believe otherwise, I more than likely would.

[Marcus]

That article is biased as hell from the get-go.
I tend to agree, but I found the idea about materialism being a dogma interesting.

It's so tedious, but people who have some reason to believe in the supernatural (those who were raised to be religious, those who think they had a supernatural experience like "NDE") are always stumbling over themselves to discount science, empiricism, materialism and the like.
I think it's normal to discount materialism if you had an NDE. There was a former atheist who become preacher after an NDE.

The sad thing is that big bad scientists are making strides in explaining "NDE"s as simple neural tricks. There have actually already been simulated out-of-body experiences induced by merely stimulating a particular region of the brain electrically. Why isn't this enough information for us to be able assume NDEs and the like can ultimately be scientifically explained?

I'd guess that this would somehow undermine the meaning or value of these experiences to those who've experienced them, in their minds, to see them explained away in terms of neural events, but I'm not sure why that would have to be the case.
I think that the out of body experience is only a small part of the whole NDE. If people having NDE get a whole new (moral) perspective about their life, then they would need a complete rational explanation to dismiss the spiritual part. If the experience would be purely psychedelic, or dream-like, then they would get convinced more easily.

[foroneonly]

I don't really see how an ideology or sort of values system can be scientific. Sure you can argue philisophical points based on logic, but ultimately it is all pretty subjective. I vote dogma.