Materialism is nonsensical

[Belindi]

If there were not a 'domain of objectified spirit' as part of human nature we would all react to circumstances and lack all creativity and imagination. If there were no 'domain of objectified spirit' there would be no scientists, artists, philosophers, or technologists. There would be no honest working practices or human rights unless these happened by random chance.

[3017Metaphysician]

Nothing new under the sun there. Now you're accusing me of not doing philosophy. Okay great. How about this. I challenge you to provide a logical syllogism that proves Materialism explains everything in terms of material events. Real simple, no? I'm calling you out. Do some logic, okay? I'm not giving you a free pass here.

Remember you just said above "I see materialism as reasonable based on current evidence". Where is the evidence?? What kind of evidence or reasoning are you using?

No, I am not accusing you of not doing philosophy, I am observing you not doing philosophy. You are taking somewhat incoherent pot shots at what you see as ideological enemies. That's not philosophy, that's a simian throwing banana skins at another.

Again, no model has solved the deepest problems of reality. How many times must I repeat that science has not solved all the world's mysteries? Yet you repeatedly demand that I tell you how materialism explains everything. So far, materialist science has been shown to be pretty effective at solving nature's problems. That deserves respect IMO.

Saying that materialism is nonsensical because science it has not solved all the mysteries of reality is not philosophy, it's just barracking for a team. Science is not philosophy's enemy; science provides the ground on which we can travel. Here are some reasoned discussions about this topic:

SB!

1. I love science (time, QM, cognitive science, the relationships between mind and matter, etc. etc.).
2. Don't dichotomize reality (the video asked and either/or question). Nice vid BTW!
3. Living life is both/and; not just ether/or (subconsciousness/consciousness, quality/quantity, subject/object, material/immaterial, etc.).
4. It's nonsensical by itself because it's like saying object-object.
5. It's nonsensical because it doesn't seem to work with logico-deductive reasoning about the nature of reality.
6. It's self refuting because the laws of the material universe themselves, are not exclusively material entities.
7. It's self refuting because it requires a thinking-feeling observer: subject-object.
8. No one knows where material Singularity came from.
9. No one seems to know how, what, where, why, when information/instructions/genetic coding/self-organization emerges from matter.
10. The Will to exist or not exist, is a qualitative property of consciousness (not exclusively materially quantitative).

SB, I would say this. In the information age, and with QM and all that physical science has discovered thus far (dark energy, Higgs/boson, quantum superposition-things coming in an out of existence, quantum tunneling, and so on), Materialism is outdated. It's like arguing free Will v. determinism. Material 'life' is both determined and indetermined.

While it's fun to discuss, and I personally value and appreciate all that physical reality brings to the table, to dichotomize realty into an either/or proposition makes no sense. It's kind of like saying solipsism is all that exists. The world of Phenomenology is much more than the quantity of a thing-in-itself. Remember, using logic viz the nature of reality is both/and; it has multiple or 'gradient' truth value's. A mottled color of truth if you will. Just like a ToE seeks to integrate two different things from a purely logical vantage point, all we can say is that the concepts of causation requires us to view the nature of reality as a both/and proposition. That's reality. As such, we have to integrate, not dichotomize reality. Particularly, with respect to some-thing and not no-thing (ex nihilo), it becomes a philosophical exercise about which takes primacy (i.e., physical matter or information).

Part 4 of my attack on the exclusivity of Materialism will explore The Matter Myth, and Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. I hope you will join the discussion.

[JackDaydream]

Nothing new under the sun there. Now you're accusing me of not doing philosophy. Okay great. How about this. I challenge you to provide a logical syllogism that proves Materialism explains everything in terms of material events. Real simple, no? I'm calling you out. Do some logic, okay? I'm not giving you a free pass here.

Remember you just said above "I see materialism as reasonable based on current evidence". Where is the evidence?? What kind of evidence or reasoning are you using?

No, I am not accusing you of not doing philosophy, I am observing you not doing philosophy. You are taking somewhat incoherent pot shots at what you see as ideological enemies. That's not philosophy, that's a simian throwing banana skins at another.

Again, no model has solved the deepest problems of reality. How many times must I repeat that science has not solved all the world's mysteries? Yet you repeatedly demand that I tell you how materialism explains everything. So far, materialist science has been shown to be pretty effective at solving nature's problems. That deserves respect IMO.

Saying that materialism is nonsensical because science it has not solved all the mysteries of reality is not philosophy, it's just barracking for a team. Science is not philosophy's enemy; science provides the ground on which we can travel. Here are some reasoned discussions about this topic:

SB!

1. I love science (time, QM, cognitive science, the relationships between mind and matter, etc. etc.).
2. Don't dichotomize reality (the video asked and either/or question). Nice vid BTW!
3. Living life is both/and; not just ether/or (subconsciousness/consciousness, quality/quantity, subject/object, material/immaterial, etc.).
4. It's nonsensical by itself because it's like saying object-object.
5. It's nonsensical because it doesn't seem to work with logico-deductive reasoning about the nature of reality.
6. It's self refuting because the laws of the material universe themselves, are not exclusively material entities.
7. It's self refuting because it requires a thinking-feeling observer: subject-object.
8. No one knows where material Singularity came from.
9. No one seems to know how, what, where, why, when information/instructions/genetic coding/self-organization emerges from matter.
10. The Will to exist or not exist, is a qualitative property of consciousness (not exclusively materially quantitative).

SB, I would say this. In the information age, and with QM and all that physical science has discovered thus far (dark energy, Higgs/boson, quantum superposition-things coming in an out of existence, quantum tunneling, and so on), Materialism is outdated. It's like arguing free Will v. determinism. Material 'life' is both determined and indetermined.

While it's fun to discuss, and I personally value and appreciate all that physical reality brings to the table, to dichotomize realty into an either/or proposition makes no sense. It's kind of like saying solipsism is all that exists. The world of Phenomenology is much more than the quantity of a thing-in-itself. Remember, using logic viz the nature of reality is both/and; it has multiple or 'gradient' truth value's. A mottled color of truth if you will. Just like a ToE seeks to integrate two different things from a purely logical vantage point, all we can say is that the concepts of causation requires us to view the nature of reality as a both/and proposition. That's reality. As such, we have to integrate, not dichotomize reality. Particularly, with respect to some-thing and not no-thing (ex nihilo), it becomes a philosophical exercise about which takes primacy (i.e., physical matter or information).

Part 4 of my attack on the exclusivity of Materialism will explore The Matter Myth, and Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. I hope you will join the discussion.

I am interested in the nature of 'spooky action' at a distance. However,I am wondering if it would be helpful for the discussion if you left out the word 'nonsense' because while materialism doesn't explain everything the title, 'Materialism is Nonsense' is extreme, involving dichotomous thinking.

[3017Metaphysician]

Nothing new under the sun there. Now you're accusing me of not doing philosophy. Okay great. How about this. I challenge you to provide a logical syllogism that proves Materialism explains everything in terms of material events. Real simple, no? I'm calling you out. Do some logic, okay? I'm not giving you a free pass here.

Remember you just said above "I see materialism as reasonable based on current evidence". Where is the evidence?? What kind of evidence or reasoning are you using?

No, I am not accusing you of not doing philosophy, I am observing you not doing philosophy. You are taking somewhat incoherent pot shots at what you see as ideological enemies. That's not philosophy, that's a simian throwing banana skins at another.

Again, no model has solved the deepest problems of reality. How many times must I repeat that science has not solved all the world's mysteries? Yet you repeatedly demand that I tell you how materialism explains everything. So far, materialist science has been shown to be pretty effective at solving nature's problems. That deserves respect IMO.

Saying that materialism is nonsensical because science it has not solved all the mysteries of reality is not philosophy, it's just barracking for a team. Science is not philosophy's enemy; science provides the ground on which we can travel. Here are some reasoned discussions about this topic:

SB!

1. I love science (time, QM, cognitive science, the relationships between mind and matter, etc. etc.).
2. Don't dichotomize reality (the video asked and either/or question). Nice vid BTW!
3. Living life is both/and; not just ether/or (subconsciousness/consciousness, quality/quantity, subject/object, material/immaterial, etc.).
4. It's nonsensical by itself because it's like saying object-object.
5. It's nonsensical because it doesn't seem to work with logico-deductive reasoning about the nature of reality.
6. It's self refuting because the laws of the material universe themselves, are not exclusively material entities.
7. It's self refuting because it requires a thinking-feeling observer: subject-object.
8. No one knows where material Singularity came from.
9. No one seems to know how, what, where, why, when information/instructions/genetic coding/self-organization emerges from matter.
10. The Will to exist or not exist, is a qualitative property of consciousness (not exclusively materially quantitative).

SB, I would say this. In the information age, and with QM and all that physical science has discovered thus far (dark energy, Higgs/boson, quantum superposition-things coming in an out of existence, quantum tunneling, and so on), Materialism is outdated. It's like arguing free Will v. determinism. Material 'life' is both determined and indetermined.

While it's fun to discuss, and I personally value and appreciate all that physical reality brings to the table, to dichotomize realty into an either/or proposition makes no sense. It's kind of like saying solipsism is all that exists. The world of Phenomenology is much more than the quantity of a thing-in-itself. Remember, using logic viz the nature of reality is both/and; it has multiple or 'gradient' truth value's. A mottled color of truth if you will. Just like a ToE seeks to integrate two different things from a purely logical vantage point, all we can say is that the concepts of causation requires us to view the nature of reality as a both/and proposition. That's reality. As such, we have to integrate, not dichotomize reality. Particularly, with respect to some-thing and not no-thing (ex nihilo), it becomes a philosophical exercise about which takes primacy (i.e., physical matter or information).

Part 4 of my attack on the exclusivity of Materialism will explore The Matter Myth, and Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. I hope you will join the discussion.

I am interested in the nature of 'spooky action' at a distance. However,I am wondering if it would be helpful for the discussion if you left out the word 'nonsense' because while materialism doesn't explain everything the title, 'Materialism is Nonsense' is extreme, involving dichotomous thinking.

Jack!

Thanks Jack. Because philosophy lives in the logic of words and human language, we cannot escape its binary attributes. Accordingly, when we use the most secure form of reasoning (deduction) provides for the exclusivity of Materialism being nonsensical.

As discussed, dichotomous thinking would be object-object or subject-subject, which in itself is nonsensical. Perhaps one question there would be what is the distinction between some-thing that is sensical and some-thing that is nonsensical?

[JackDaydream]

No, I am not accusing you of not doing philosophy, I am observing you not doing philosophy. You are taking somewhat incoherent pot shots at what you see as ideological enemies. That's not philosophy, that's a simian throwing banana skins at another.

Again, no model has solved the deepest problems of reality. How many times must I repeat that science has not solved all the world's mysteries? Yet you repeatedly demand that I tell you how materialism explains everything. So far, materialist science has been shown to be pretty effective at solving nature's problems. That deserves respect IMO.

Saying that materialism is nonsensical because science it has not solved all the mysteries of reality is not philosophy, it's just barracking for a team. Science is not philosophy's enemy; science provides the ground on which we can travel. Here are some reasoned discussions about this topic:

SB!

1. I love science (time, QM, cognitive science, the relationships between mind and matter, etc. etc.).
2. Don't dichotomize reality (the video asked and either/or question). Nice vid BTW!
3. Living life is both/and; not just ether/or (subconsciousness/consciousness, quality/quantity, subject/object, material/immaterial, etc.).
4. It's nonsensical by itself because it's like saying object-object.
5. It's nonsensical because it doesn't seem to work with logico-deductive reasoning about the nature of reality.
6. It's self refuting because the laws of the material universe themselves, are not exclusively material entities.
7. It's self refuting because it requires a thinking-feeling observer: subject-object.
8. No one knows where material Singularity came from.
9. No one seems to know how, what, where, why, when information/instructions/genetic coding/self-organization emerges from matter.
10. The Will to exist or not exist, is a qualitative property of consciousness (not exclusively materially quantitative).

SB, I would say this. In the information age, and with QM and all that physical science has discovered thus far (dark energy, Higgs/boson, quantum superposition-things coming in an out of existence, quantum tunneling, and so on), Materialism is outdated. It's like arguing free Will v. determinism. Material 'life' is both determined and indetermined.

While it's fun to discuss, and I personally value and appreciate all that physical reality brings to the table, to dichotomize realty into an either/or proposition makes no sense. It's kind of like saying solipsism is all that exists. The world of Phenomenology is much more than the quantity of a thing-in-itself. Remember, using logic viz the nature of reality is both/and; it has multiple or 'gradient' truth value's. A mottled color of truth if you will. Just like a ToE seeks to integrate two different things from a purely logical vantage point, all we can say is that the concepts of causation requires us to view the nature of reality as a both/and proposition. That's reality. As such, we have to integrate, not dichotomize reality. Particularly, with respect to some-thing and not no-thing (ex nihilo), it becomes a philosophical exercise about which takes primacy (i.e., physical matter or information).

Part 4 of my attack on the exclusivity of Materialism will explore The Matter Myth, and Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. I hope you will join the discussion.

I am interested in the nature of 'spooky action' at a distance. However,I am wondering if it would be helpful for the discussion if you left out the word 'nonsense' because while materialism doesn't explain everything the title, 'Materialism is Nonsense' is extreme, involving dichotomous thinking.

Jack!

Thanks Jack. Because philosophy lives in the logic of words and human language, we cannot escape its binary attributes. Accordingly, when we use the most secure form of reasoning (deduction) provides for the exclusivity of Materialism being nonsensical.

As discussed, dichotomous thinking would be object-object or subject-subject, which in itself is nonsensical. Perhaps one question there would be what is the distinction between some-thing that is sensical and some-thing that is nonsensical?

About a year ago I saw a book in a shop with a title along the lines of what is nonsense in philosophy? In a way, the concept of nonsense is worth considering because there may be ideas which are completely nonsense. I would regard the belief in a literal person Adam and Eve and an actual 7 day creation of the world as nonsense, but I know many people who do believe in these firmly. However, in some respects, the word nonsense is loaded because I know that if I told people who had certain ideas that they were talking nonsense they would be offended. It is possible that my approach is based on working in psychiatric nursing because it wouldn't have been professional to tell anyone they were talking nonsense even if they believed there were green monsters in the room.

In thinking about philosophy, there are binaries and in between areas. Sometimes, when I read forum discussions it does seem so polarised and it may be that human beings are inclined to go to the binary extremes in thought. However, the careful consideration of the in betweens may involve deeper understanding of the most critical aspects for exploration. Of course, choosing titles is tricky because it is a bit like newspaper headlines and your thread has captured a lot of detailed discussion on the nature of materialism. It is one of the most thought provoking areas of philosophy.

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

1. I love science (time, QM, cognitive science, the relationships between mind and matter, etc. etc.).
2. Don't dichotomize reality (the video asked and either/or question). Nice vid BTW!
3. Living life is both/and; not just ether/or (subconsciousness/consciousness, quality/quantity, subject/object, material/immaterial, etc.).
4. It's nonsensical by itself because it's like saying object-object.
5. It's nonsensical because it doesn't seem to work with logico-deductive reasoning about the nature of reality.
6. It's self refuting because the laws of the material universe themselves, are not exclusively material entities.
7. It's self refuting because it requires a thinking-feeling observer: subject-object.
8. No one knows where material Singularity came from.
9. No one seems to know how, what, where, why, when information/instructions/genetic coding/self-organization emerges from matter.
10. The Will to exist or not exist, is a qualitative property of consciousness (not exclusively materially quantitative).

SB, I would say this. In the information age, and with QM and all that physical science has discovered thus far (dark energy, Higgs/boson, quantum superposition-things coming in an out of existence, quantum tunneling, and so on), Materialism is outdated. It's like arguing free Will v. determinism. Material 'life' is both determined and indetermined.

While it's fun to discuss, and I personally value and appreciate all that physical reality brings to the table, to dichotomize realty into an either/or proposition makes no sense. It's kind of like saying solipsism is all that exists. The world of Phenomenology is much more than the quantity of a thing-in-itself. Remember, using logic viz the nature of reality is both/and; it has multiple or 'gradient' truth value's. A mottled color of truth if you will. Just like a ToE seeks to integrate two different things from a purely logical vantage point, all we can say is that the concepts of causation requires us to view the nature of reality as a both/and proposition. That's reality. As such, we have to integrate, not dichotomize reality. Particularly, with respect to some-thing and not no-thing (ex nihilo), it becomes a philosophical exercise about which takes primacy (i.e., physical matter or information).

Part 4 of my attack on the exclusivity of Materialism will explore The Matter Myth, and Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. I hope you will join the discussion.

I am interested in the nature of 'spooky action' at a distance. However,I am wondering if it would be helpful for the discussion if you left out the word 'nonsense' because while materialism doesn't explain everything the title, 'Materialism is Nonsense' is extreme, involving dichotomous thinking.

Jack!

Thanks Jack. Because philosophy lives in the logic of words and human language, we cannot escape its binary attributes. Accordingly, when we use the most secure form of reasoning (deduction) provides for the exclusivity of Materialism being nonsensical.

As discussed, dichotomous thinking would be object-object or subject-subject, which in itself is nonsensical. Perhaps one question there would be what is the distinction between some-thing that is sensical and some-thing that is nonsensical?

About a year ago I saw a book in a shop with a title along the lines of what is nonsense in philosophy? In a way, the concept of nonsense is worth considering because there may be ideas which are completely nonsense. I would regard the belief in a literal person Adam and Eve and an actual 7 day creation of the world as nonsense, but I know many people who do believe in these firmly. However, in some respects, the word nonsense is loaded because I know that if I told people who had certain ideas that they were talking nonsense they would be offended. It is possible that my approach is based on working in psychiatric nursing because it wouldn't have been professional to tell anyone they were talking nonsense even if they believed there were green monsters in the room.

In thinking about philosophy, there are binaries and in between areas. Sometimes, when I read forum discussions it does seem so polarised and it may be that human beings are inclined to go to the binary extremes in thought. However, the careful consideration of the in betweens may involve deeper understanding of the most critical aspects for exploration. Of course, choosing titles is tricky because it is a bit like newspaper headlines and your thread has captured a lot of detailed discussion on the nature of materialism. It is one of the most thought provoking areas of philosophy.

Jack!

Although a discussion for another thread, your description of 'things' that exist ex nihilo (the metaphor of Adam and Eve) is simply that, an extended metaphor (allegory). And those things being material 'objects', like 'Adam and Eve' would not be considered exclusively material objects in-themselves. Of course, like you and I, they would be considered Beings with Agency. If they were considered as pure objects in-themselves, a whole host of nonsensical belief systems rear their heads there. For instance, if you were to say that women exist purely as objects, that in itself would be nonsensical and offensive, not to mention the problems with Agency, sexual objectification, so on and so forth.

Like any history book about human's, we understand their existence as a narrative, but we also know that their existence was more than just mere object's. Yet one more reason to consider how the information narrative emerged from the matter narrative. Perhaps that question would make more sense... .

I can appreciate your experiences with pathology. Of course, it's all part of the existential human condition. The mind is a mysterious thing indeed. Perhaps the next question is, why do pathologies exist(?). Do other animals experience pathologies that effect their quality of life? What does quality of life mean?

[JackDaydream]

I am interested in the nature of 'spooky action' at a distance. However,I am wondering if it would be helpful for the discussion if you left out the word 'nonsense' because while materialism doesn't explain everything the title, 'Materialism is Nonsense' is extreme, involving dichotomous thinking.

Jack!

Thanks Jack. Because philosophy lives in the logic of words and human language, we cannot escape its binary attributes. Accordingly, when we use the most secure form of reasoning (deduction) provides for the exclusivity of Materialism being nonsensical.

As discussed, dichotomous thinking would be object-object or subject-subject, which in itself is nonsensical. Perhaps one question there would be what is the distinction between some-thing that is sensical and some-thing that is nonsensical?

About a year ago I saw a book in a shop with a title along the lines of what is nonsense in philosophy? In a way, the concept of nonsense is worth considering because there may be ideas which are completely nonsense. I would regard the belief in a literal person Adam and Eve and an actual 7 day creation of the world as nonsense, but I know many people who do believe in these firmly. However, in some respects, the word nonsense is loaded because I know that if I told people who had certain ideas that they were talking nonsense they would be offended. It is possible that my approach is based on working in psychiatric nursing because it wouldn't have been professional to tell anyone they were talking nonsense even if they believed there were green monsters in the room.

In thinking about philosophy, there are binaries and in between areas. Sometimes, when I read forum discussions it does seem so polarised and it may be that human beings are inclined to go to the binary extremes in thought. However, the careful consideration of the in betweens may involve deeper understanding of the most critical aspects for exploration. Of course, choosing titles is tricky because it is a bit like newspaper headlines and your thread has captured a lot of detailed discussion on the nature of materialism. It is one of the most thought provoking areas of philosophy.

Jack!

Although a discussion for another thread, your description of 'things' that exist ex nihilo (the metaphor of Adam and Eve) is simply that, an extended metaphor (allegory). And those things being material 'objects', like 'Adam and Eve' would not be considered exclusively material objects in-themselves. Of course, like you and I, they would be considered Beings with Agency. If they were considered as pure objects in-themselves, a whole host of nonsensical belief systems rear their heads there. For instance, if you were to say that women exist purely as objects, that in itself would be nonsensical and offensive, not to mention the problems with Agency, sexual objectification, so on and so forth.

Like any history book about human's, we understand their existence as a narrative, but we also know that their existence was more than just mere object's. Yet one more reason to consider how the information narrative emerged from the matter narrative. Perhaps that question would make more sense... .

I can appreciate your experiences with pathology. Of course, it's all part of the existential human condition. The mind is a mysterious thing indeed. Perhaps the next question is, why do pathologies exist(?). Do other animals experience pathologies that effect their quality of life? What does quality of life mean?

I don't wish to derail the thread with the nature of pathology, especially mental health, because there are issues about how it is defined. However, keeping in line with the question of materialism, it may be that it is an area where the consideration of materialistic determinism is debated.

I have come across the debate amongst psychiatrists. Some see mental health problems as being a matter of genetics and biochemistry whereas others approach it more in terms of experiences. Generally, many see it as a complex mixture, often adopting a bio-psychosocial model. I have come across one psychiatric consultant who thought that people with psychosis were more sensitive to the collective unconscious. However, he was not an idealist in the sense that he still prescribed psychiatric medication for psychosis. However, the way metaphysics is understood the physical aspects and pathways are the medium of human experiences, both the physical and mental are important.

It is hard to know if the 'spiritual' exists in it's own realm even though Jung argues for the objective existence of the psyche. Jung was not a materialist, but it is hard to know to what extent it is about 'spirit' or the existential aspect of life. Going back to psychiatry, I remember saying to one of the psychiatrists who I regarded as having a physicalist approach that everything on the ward was quiet and he replied, 'Don't say that,Jack, or you will cause a hex', and he said that in such an angry way as if he was fearful of such a possibility

Finally, on the level of pathology and suffering, while most of us detest physical and mental pain, it may be that without it there would be no evolution on an adaptive level. It is hard to know how much emotion animals experience but it is likely that they have emotions because they seem sensitive to surroundings. The issue may thay they don't have concepts, based on language and, thereby, don't wonder about the questions of philosophy and existence. The opposite may be nonsentient forms of artificial intelligence but it is questionable whether they are 'spirits' or simply machines.

[GE Morton]

If there were not a 'domain of objectified spirit' as part of human nature we would all react to circumstances and lack all creativity and imagination. If there were no 'domain of objectified spirit' there would be no scientists, artists, philosophers, or technologists. There would be no honest working practices or human rights unless these happened by random chance.

Huh? What is the evidence for those claims? What is "objectified spirit" --- how is it defined and identified? What is the evidence that it is necessary for creativity, imagination, etc.?

Suppose Alfie is more creative/imaginative than Bruno (as evidenced by their respective behaviors and works). Can you measure the different amounts of "objectified spirit" they respectively possess? Note than you can't just infer that Alife has more than Bruno, since that would render your theory circular and unfalsifiable.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

Thanks Jack. Because philosophy lives in the logic of words and human language, we cannot escape its binary attributes. Accordingly, when we use the most secure form of reasoning (deduction) provides for the exclusivity of Materialism being nonsensical.

As discussed, dichotomous thinking would be object-object or subject-subject, which in itself is nonsensical. Perhaps one question there would be what is the distinction between some-thing that is sensical and some-thing that is nonsensical?

About a year ago I saw a book in a shop with a title along the lines of what is nonsense in philosophy? In a way, the concept of nonsense is worth considering because there may be ideas which are completely nonsense. I would regard the belief in a literal person Adam and Eve and an actual 7 day creation of the world as nonsense, but I know many people who do believe in these firmly. However, in some respects, the word nonsense is loaded because I know that if I told people who had certain ideas that they were talking nonsense they would be offended. It is possible that my approach is based on working in psychiatric nursing because it wouldn't have been professional to tell anyone they were talking nonsense even if they believed there were green monsters in the room.

In thinking about philosophy, there are binaries and in between areas. Sometimes, when I read forum discussions it does seem so polarised and it may be that human beings are inclined to go to the binary extremes in thought. However, the careful consideration of the in betweens may involve deeper understanding of the most critical aspects for exploration. Of course, choosing titles is tricky because it is a bit like newspaper headlines and your thread has captured a lot of detailed discussion on the nature of materialism. It is one of the most thought provoking areas of philosophy.

Jack!

Although a discussion for another thread, your description of 'things' that exist ex nihilo (the metaphor of Adam and Eve) is simply that, an extended metaphor (allegory). And those things being material 'objects', like 'Adam and Eve' would not be considered exclusively material objects in-themselves. Of course, like you and I, they would be considered Beings with Agency. If they were considered as pure objects in-themselves, a whole host of nonsensical belief systems rear their heads there. For instance, if you were to say that women exist purely as objects, that in itself would be nonsensical and offensive, not to mention the problems with Agency, sexual objectification, so on and so forth.

Like any history book about human's, we understand their existence as a narrative, but we also know that their existence was more than just mere object's. Yet one more reason to consider how the information narrative emerged from the matter narrative. Perhaps that question would make more sense... .

I can appreciate your experiences with pathology. Of course, it's all part of the existential human condition. The mind is a mysterious thing indeed. Perhaps the next question is, why do pathologies exist(?). Do other animals experience pathologies that effect their quality of life? What does quality of life mean?

I don't wish to derail the thread with the nature of pathology, especially mental health, because there are issues about how it is defined. However, keeping in line with the question of materialism, it may be that it is an area where the consideration of materialistic determinism is debated.

I have come across the debate amongst psychiatrists. Some see mental health problems as being a matter of genetics and biochemistry whereas others approach it more in terms of experiences. Generally, many see it as a complex mixture, often adopting a bio-psychosocial model. I have come across one psychiatric consultant who thought that people with psychosis were more sensitive to the collective unconscious. However, he was not an idealist in the sense that he still prescribed psychiatric medication for psychosis. However, the way metaphysics is understood the physical aspects and pathways are the medium of human experiences, both the physical and mental are important.

It is hard to know if the 'spiritual' exists in it's own realm even though Jung argues for the objective existence of the psyche. Jung was not a materialist, but it is hard to know to what extent it is about 'spirit' or the existential aspect of life. Going back to psychiatry, I remember saying to one of the psychiatrists who I regarded as having a physicalist approach that everything on the ward was quiet and he replied, 'Don't say that,Jack, or you will cause a hex', and he said that in such an angry way as if he was fearful of such a possibility

Finally, on the level of pathology and suffering, while most of us detest physical and mental pain, it may be that without it there would be no evolution on an adaptive level. It is hard to know how much emotion animals experience but it is likely that they have emotions because they seem sensitive to surroundings. The issue may thay they don't have concepts, based on language and, thereby, don't wonder about the questions of philosophy and existence. The opposite may be nonsentient forms of artificial intelligence but it is questionable whether they are 'spirits' or simply machines.

Jack!

In terms of this discussion, I haven't been thinking about Metaphysics in a spiritual sense. In this thread, I have been thinking about it in at least seven ways:

1. The relationships between mind and matter.
2. Causation
3. Qualitive v. quantitative properties of the mind/reality.
4. The origin and nature of the universe ( to a lesser degree).
5. Self-organized, self-directed biological information systems (to a greater degree).
6. Logic
7. Phenomenology and experience

I think you touched on at least the second item of causation. In behaviorism, one can ask what causes the 'material mind' to behave normally v. pathologically? We might understand this 'dysfunction' materially, but the nature of its cause is mysteriously unknown. Meaning in our antinomy (or finitude), what is the purpose behind propagation of healthy self-organized organisms verses unhealthy one's? Why should being healthy matter?

In other words, if pathology is not attributed to or necessary for, survival success, then what causes biological systems to produce pathological behavior in the first place? Conversely, what causes biological systems to produce healthy behavior?

Remember, Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.

[Belindi]

If there were not a 'domain of objectified spirit' as part of human nature we would all react to circumstances and lack all creativity and imagination. If there were no 'domain of objectified spirit' there would be no scientists, artists, philosophers, or technologists. There would be no honest working practices or human rights unless these happened by random chance.

Huh? What is the evidence for those claims? What is "objectified spirit" --- how is it defined and identified? What is the evidence that it is necessary for creativity, imagination, etc.?

Suppose Alfie is more creative/imaginative than Bruno (as evidenced by their respective behaviors and works). Can you measure the different amounts of "objectified spirit" they respectively possess? Note than you can't just infer that Alife has more than Bruno, since that would render your theory circular and unfalsifiable.

My theory of the creating imagination qua 'objectified spirit' is not based on comparisons of any given pair of individuals such as Alfie and Bruno. My theory of the creating imagination is based on cultural evolution and its cause . The cause of creating imagination('objectified spirit') is human nature that includes potential creating imagination ('objectified spirit')which may be actualised as existing creations e.g. scientific theories, works of art, artistic performances, steam engines, combine harvesters.

[GE Morton]

The cause of creating imagination('objectified spirit') is human nature that includes potential creating imagination ('objectified spirit')which may be actualised as existing creations e.g. scientific theories, works of art, artistic performances, steam engines, combine harvesters.

Hmmm . . . "The cause of creating imagination('objectified spirit') is human nature that includes potential creating imagination ('objectified spirit') . . ."

The cause of X is the potential for X? Is the cause of, say, COVID the potential for COVID? Does that tell us anything informative?

And "objectified spirit" is just a synonym for "creating imagination"? Doesn't the former expression carry "metaphysical" implications the latter doesn't?

[Consul]

If there were not a 'domain of objectified spirit' as part of human nature we would all react to circumstances and lack all creativity and imagination. If there were no 'domain of objectified spirit' there would be no scientists, artists, philosophers, or technologists. There would be no honest working practices or human rights unless these happened by random chance.

Huh? What is the evidence for those claims? What is "objectified spirit" --- how is it defined and identified? What is the evidence that it is necessary for creativity, imagination, etc.?

Cultural products and artifacts, particularly artworks, constitute the objectified spirit. This term is used by Nicolai Hartmann, who distinguishes between (1) the living individual, personal spirit (Geist), (2) the living supraindividual/suprapersonal objective spirit (Geist), i.e. the common spirit or social spirit of a people (society/community) as manifested in social institutions, practices, customs, traditions, morality, law, politics, pedagogy, education, art, technology, sport, fashion etc.; and (3) the non-living objectified spirit (Geist).

Note that the German noun "Geist" as used e.g. in "Geisteswissenschaften" ("sciences of the spirit", most of which are subsumed under "humanities" in the English-speaking world) is not semantically restricted to "mind" as used in individual psychology. Geisteswissenschaft is not the same as psychology qua science of the mind!

[GE Morton]

If there were not a 'domain of objectified spirit' as part of human nature we would all react to circumstances and lack all creativity and imagination. If there were no 'domain of objectified spirit' there would be no scientists, artists, philosophers, or technologists. There would be no honest working practices or human rights unless these happened by random chance.

Huh? What is the evidence for those claims? What is "objectified spirit" --- how is it defined and identified? What is the evidence that it is necessary for creativity, imagination, etc.?

Cultural products and artifacts, particularly artworks, constitute the objectified spirit. This term is used by Nicolai Hartmann, who distinguishes between (1) the living individual, personal spirit (Geist), (2) the living supraindividual/suprapersonal objective spirit (Geist), i.e. the common spirit or social spirit of a people (society/community) as manifested in social institutions, practices, customs, traditions, morality, law, politics, pedagogy, education, art, technology, sport, fashion etc.; and (3) the non-living objectified spirit (Geist).

Note that the German noun "Geist" as used e.g. in "Geisteswissenschaften" ("sciences of the spirit", most of which are subsumed under "humanities" in the English-speaking world) is not semantically restricted to "mind" as used in individual psychology. Geisteswissenschaft is not the same as psychology qua science of the mind!

Heh. Ok. "Science of the spirit" strikes me as oxymoronic. And I fail to see any explanatory utility in the concept of "spirit." Where does this entity(?) fit in your reductive materialism?

[Consul]

…(2) the living supraindividual/suprapersonal objective spirit (Geist), i.e. the common spirit or social spirit of a people (society/community) as manifested in social institutions, practices, customs, traditions, morality, law, politics, pedagogy, education, art, technology, sport, fashion etc.; and …

I forgot to mention language, the central medium of the objective spirit. Sociocultural reality depends on public languages, without which there wouldn't be any intersubjectively shareable thoughts ("ideas").

[Consul]

In my opinion, Nicolai Hartmann (1882-1950) is the greatest German systematic philosopher of the first half of the 20th century. Everybody knows Heidegger, but Hartmann is still little known, even in Germany. It's a shame, because Hartmann deserves to be at least as famous as Heidegger, especially as his oeuvre is more important than Heidegger's.

Hartmann developed a comprehensive systematic worldview that is a version of emergentive materialism/naturalism rather than reductive materialism. His ontological model of the world comprises different coexistent levels or layers (strata) of reality. The higher layers depend on the lower ones, and fundamentally on the lowest one, the (purely) material/physical one; but we find novelty (in the form of irreducibly emergent items) and relative autonomy on each level above the base level.

QUOTE:
"Nicolai Hartmann’s Levels of Reality

Traditional ontologies often rely on the idea of the Great Chain of Being, based on the principles of plenitude, continuity, and linear gradation (Lovejoy 1936). A typical example is a chain from things to plants to animals to human beings, often extended to society or even to history. But in New Ways of Ontology, Hartmann (1953 [1942], 43–53) argues that such a gradation of forms of being (Stufenfolge der Seinsgebilde) would be inappropriate as a sound basis for ontological investigations, because this kind of series of levels of reality does not present a homogeneous sequence. For example, animals are hardly a higher level of plants, societies exist already to some extent in the animal kingdom, and even inanimate material objects might have their own history. Furthermore, higher forms or entities are stratified in themselves; for example, a human being is also an animal and even a material thing. Therefore, the analysis of forms of being needs to be preceded by an analysis of strata of being, indicating a methodological shift from entities to categories of being (Seinskategorien), which are considered to be ontological principles irreducible to categories of knowing (Erkenntniskategorien).

In carrying out the first main task of the categorial analysis, Hartmann (1940, 188–200) identifies four discrete ontological domains that are separated by three border lines (Grenzscheiden). The most obvious categorial distinction is what Hartmann (1953 [1942], 79) calls the “psychophysical border line” between a spatial exteriority (räumliche Außenwelt) and an interiority of consciousness (Bewußtseinsinnerlichkeit).
In contrast to Cartesian dualism of matter/mind or body/soul, exteriority is divided further into the inorganic domain of matter (Materie) and the organic domain of life (Leben),while interiority is divided further into the mental domain of psyche (Seele) and the sociocultural domain of spirit (Geist) [Footnote 2: Hartmann’s term Geist originates from the German tradition influenced by Georg W. F. Hegel and Wilhelm Dilthey—as it is used, for example, in Geisteswissenschaft—and its meaning covers both individual mind as well as superindividual culture, which is why it lacks an adequate English translation]. Each of these four domains is determined by a specific group of categories and is based on a specific kind of causality. In detail, matter (e.g., space, time, process, substance) is based on the causal nexus; life (e.g., metabolism, assimilation, self-regulation, self-reproduction, adaptation) is based on the organic nexus; psyche (e.g., consciousness, pleasure, act and content) is based on the psychic nexus; and spirit (e.g., fear, hope, will, freedom, thought, personality, but also society, historicity, or intersubjectivity) is based on the finalistic nexus (Hartmann 1953 [1942], 43–72). Therefore, Hartmann’s pluralist ontology is able to avoid common reductionisms such as materialism, biologism, psychologism, or logicism.

In carrying out the second main task of the categorial analysis, Hartmann interprets the interrelation of these four domains as a vertical stratification, that is to say, as a linear sequence of levels of reality from matter to life to psyche to spirit. The major outcomes of his analysis of the strata are four general laws of categories that in turn are specified into further partial laws.

Moreover, Hartmann (1933, 66–73) specifies his model in two important ways. On one hand, the highest level of spiritual being is composed of three different modes of spirit (Seinsformen des Geistes) which constitute an inextricable unity: the personal spirit (personaler Geist) which is individual and living as subjective human mind, the objective spirit (objektiver Geist) which is superindividual and living as collective or intersubjective human culture, and the objectivated spirit (objektivierter Geist) which is superindividual but non-living, taking the form of such objects as material human artifacts. On the other hand, the three border lines which separate the levels of reality are based on two different kinds of vertical relations: superformation (Überformung) and superposition (Überbauung).



The relation of superformation—sometimes translated as “over-forming” or “superinformation”—entails that all categories of the lower level recur at the higher level. For example, life can be considered to be a superformation of matter because all categories of the lower level, such as space or substance, recur at the higher level. In contrast, the relation of superposition—sometimes translated as “building-above”—implies that the categories of the lower level do not recur at the higher level, leaving aside fundamental categories such as time, process, or causality which apply to all levels of reality. For example, Hartmann (1940, 485–487) considers psyche to be superposed on life because the recurrence of lower-level categories like space or substance seems to break off at this level."

(Kleineberg, Michael. "From Linearity to Co-Evolution: On the Architecture of Nicolai Hartmann’s Levels of Reality." In New Research on the Philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann, edited by Keith Peterson and Roberto Poli, 81-108. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. pp. 82-5)
:QUOTE