Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 11:56 am
Mercury wrote: October 22nd, 2022, 7:04 pm Materialism is only nonsensical until you are kicked in the balls!
Then suddenly, it becomes blindingly clear, that in reality, there are at least two things!
Consul wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 10:23 amHere's Samuel Johnson's famous "refutation" of Berkeley's immaterialism:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"

(Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, 1791. p. 257)

Unfortunately, Berkeley's immaterialism cannot be refuted in this way. He can simply reply that there are no genuinely material things involved in that situation, because all aspects of it, including the stone and your foot, are nothing but ideas in your mind.
Thank you for the informative and interesting quote. Unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to disagree; not least because it requires far greater explanation of Berkeley to refute apparent materialism Johnson demonstrates, than it does to accept the foot and the stone exist - and so falls afoul of Occam's Razor regarding multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but 3017Metaphysician's multiple threads all seem to suggest that an inability to wholly comprehend a thing, somehow refutes its very existence. That's not a valid inference.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 8:13 amMecury!

Exclusive materialism not only can't explain material existence (where it came from; why, what, how, etc.) but in the spirit of Berkely, can't explain the causal powers of thoughts and ideas over physical matter (thoughts and ideas causing physical action and behavior-animate and inanimate objects).

The short answer is that reality consists of both material and immaterial phenomena. As per the video, the argument is about primacy. For example, how does the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Thoughts and ideas correspond to information processing. And for humans, information itself causes physical action, behavior, and other quality of life stuff relative to one's Will, and feelings about things.

It seems no matter how you analyze it, the exclusivity of materialism is nonsensical.
I've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world. I don't want to hold you responsible for what others have expressed, like Kaleido's statement here:

"Finally, I conclude by reminding you that in a universe in flux there is no material besides the flux. What we call material is merely another kind of immaterial. Words confuse us here, because language presupposes materialism, it presupposes the belief in "things". But in reality there are no "things"."

For it is this - strong metaphysical subjectivism for want of a better term, with which I strongly disagree; as opposed to your rather more modest statement here: "The existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other."

Of this, I would merely ask - is not the mountain a mountain whether it is observed or not? Was the mountain not a mountain already a million years before anything with two vestiges of intelligence to rub together laid an eye upon it? Did the sea not crash upon the shore a billion times before a human footprint was made in the sand, did not the earth turn into light a billion times, before humans experienced the dawn and thought - mistakenly, that the sun rises?
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:26 am
Mercury wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 11:56 am
Mercury wrote: October 22nd, 2022, 7:04 pm Materialism is only nonsensical until you are kicked in the balls!
Then suddenly, it becomes blindingly clear, that in reality, there are at least two things!
Consul wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 10:23 amHere's Samuel Johnson's famous "refutation" of Berkeley's immaterialism:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"

(Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, 1791. p. 257)

Unfortunately, Berkeley's immaterialism cannot be refuted in this way. He can simply reply that there are no genuinely material things involved in that situation, because all aspects of it, including the stone and your foot, are nothing but ideas in your mind.
Thank you for the informative and interesting quote. Unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to disagree; not least because it requires far greater explanation of Berkeley to refute apparent materialism Johnson demonstrates, than it does to accept the foot and the stone exist - and so falls afoul of Occam's Razor regarding multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but 3017Metaphysician's multiple threads all seem to suggest that an inability to wholly comprehend a thing, somehow refutes its very existence. That's not a valid inference.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 8:13 amMecury!

Exclusive materialism not only can't explain material existence (where it came from; why, what, how, etc.) but in the spirit of Berkely, can't explain the causal powers of thoughts and ideas over physical matter (thoughts and ideas causing physical action and behavior-animate and inanimate objects).

The short answer is that reality consists of both material and immaterial phenomena. As per the video, the argument is about primacy. For example, how does the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Thoughts and ideas correspond to information processing. And for humans, information itself causes physical action, behavior, and other quality of life stuff relative to one's Will, and feelings about things.

It seems no matter how you analyze it, the exclusivity of materialism is nonsensical.
I've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world. I don't want to hold you responsible for what others have expressed, like Kaleido's statement here:

"Finally, I conclude by reminding you that in a universe in flux there is no material besides the flux. What we call material is merely another kind of immaterial. Words confuse us here, because language presupposes materialism, it presupposes the belief in "things". But in reality there are no "things"."

For it is this - strong metaphysical subjectivism for want of a better term, with which I strongly disagree; as opposed to your rather more modest statement here: "The existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other."

Of this, I would merely ask - is not the mountain a mountain whether it is observed or not? Was the mountain not a mountain already a million years before anything with two vestiges of intelligence to rub together laid an eye upon it? Did the sea not crash upon the shore a billion times before a human footprint was made in the sand, did not the earth turn into light a billion times, before humans experienced the dawn and thought - mistakenly, that the sun rises?
Mercury!

One can easily think of it this way. The human perception of sound has two meanings. The meta-physical and the physical, is generally parsed as a vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves). This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical (consciousness) definition, respectively.

Taking it one step further, in the context of primacy, let's suppose one wishes to listen to the sounds of music. Their own Will has causal powers in that action or human need to feel the effects of music. Upon their perception of sound, they have feelings which have cause and effect (causal powers). That simple example presupposes the Will taking primacy in their need to listen to music. Is that phenomenal experience of the Will, all physical, meta-physical, or both? If it's both (the correct answer), which takes primacy in that scenario? The feelings associated with the need to hear music(?).

Neuron's themselves do not actually cause the need to listen to music. And with respect to inanimate objects, what are the causes of quantum phenomenon/non-local behavior of a thing... . In other words, if neurons had causal powers, there would exist talking trees, angry neurons, talking planets, ad nauseum. And in quantum phenomena, what causes that Einsteinian spooky action at a distance(?).

Remember, the exclusivity of materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Seems nonsensical, no?

To answer your concerns, the causes of those things existing not only can't be fully explained physically (no one knows where Singularity came from, much less the why's, where, how, etc.) but the nature of the questions themselves, and resulting theories themselves, requires a mind that wonders and is curious about stuff. Accordingly, is wonderment and curiosity exclusively caused by inanimate physical processes? The materialist tries to argue that somehow it does. How is that possible? And how are inanimate objects (quantum non-locality) coded in such a way that causes its behavior? In other words, where are all the instructions in the hunk of dirt?

Just some more things to monder.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Consul »

Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:26 amI've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world.
:?:
Einstein was not an immaterialist à la Berkeley!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:26 am
Mercury wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 11:56 am
Mercury wrote: October 22nd, 2022, 7:04 pm Materialism is only nonsensical until you are kicked in the balls!
Then suddenly, it becomes blindingly clear, that in reality, there are at least two things!
Consul wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 10:23 amHere's Samuel Johnson's famous "refutation" of Berkeley's immaterialism:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"

(Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, 1791. p. 257)

Unfortunately, Berkeley's immaterialism cannot be refuted in this way. He can simply reply that there are no genuinely material things involved in that situation, because all aspects of it, including the stone and your foot, are nothing but ideas in your mind.
Thank you for the informative and interesting quote. Unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to disagree; not least because it requires far greater explanation of Berkeley to refute apparent materialism Johnson demonstrates, than it does to accept the foot and the stone exist - and so falls afoul of Occam's Razor regarding multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but 3017Metaphysician's multiple threads all seem to suggest that an inability to wholly comprehend a thing, somehow refutes its very existence. That's not a valid inference.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 8:13 amMecury!

Exclusive materialism not only can't explain material existence (where it came from; why, what, how, etc.) but in the spirit of Berkely, can't explain the causal powers of thoughts and ideas over physical matter (thoughts and ideas causing physical action and behavior-animate and inanimate objects).

The short answer is that reality consists of both material and immaterial phenomena. As per the video, the argument is about primacy. For example, how does the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Thoughts and ideas correspond to information processing. And for humans, information itself causes physical action, behavior, and other quality of life stuff relative to one's Will, and feelings about things.

It seems no matter how you analyze it, the exclusivity of materialism is nonsensical.
I've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world. I don't want to hold you responsible for what others have expressed, like Kaleido's statement here:

"Finally, I conclude by reminding you that in a universe in flux there is no material besides the flux. What we call material is merely another kind of immaterial. Words confuse us here, because language presupposes materialism, it presupposes the belief in "things". But in reality there are no "things"."

For it is this - strong metaphysical subjectivism for want of a better term, with which I strongly disagree; as opposed to your rather more modest statement here: "The existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other."

Of this, I would merely ask - is not the mountain a mountain whether it is observed or not? Was the mountain not a mountain already a million years before anything with two vestiges of intelligence to rub together laid an eye upon it? Did the sea not crash upon the shore a billion times before a human footprint was made in the sand, did not the earth turn into light a billion times, before humans experienced the dawn and thought - mistakenly, that the sun rises?
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 10:33 am Mercury!

One can easily think of it this way. The human perception of sound has two meanings. The meta-physical and the physical, is generally parsed as a vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves). This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical (consciousness) definition, respectively.

Taking it one step further, in the context of primacy, let's suppose one wishes to listen to the sounds of music. Their own Will has causal powers in that action or human need to feel the effects of music. Upon their perception of sound, they have feelings which have cause and effect (causal powers). That simple example presupposes the Will taking primacy in their need to listen to music. Is that phenomenal experience of the Will, all physical, meta-physical, or both? If it's both (the correct answer), which takes primacy in that scenario? The feelings associated with the need to hear music(?).

Neuron's themselves do not actually cause the need to listen to music. And with respect to inanimate objects, what are the causes of quantum phenomenon/non-local behavior of a thing... . In other words, if neurons had causal powers, there would exist talking trees, angry neurons, talking planets, ad nauseum. And in quantum phenomena, what causes that Einsteinian spooky action at a distance(?).

Remember, the exclusivity of materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Seems nonsensical, no?

To answer your concerns, the causes of those things existing not only can't be fully explained physically (no one knows where Singularity came from, much less the why's, where, how, etc.) but the nature of the questions themselves, and resulting theories themselves, requires a mind that wonders and is curious about stuff. Accordingly, is wonderment and curiosity exclusively caused by inanimate physical processes? The materialist tries to argue that somehow it does. How is that possible? And how are inanimate objects (quantum non-locality) coded in such a way that causes its behavior? In other words, where are all the instructions in the hunk of dirt?

Just some more things to monder.
The mechanics of a bat's hearing are not entirely different to the mechanics of human hearing. Sound creates vibrations that travel through the air at approximately 700mph, and are detected and interpreted by the listener. In a bat, vibrational energy occasions - not so much a sensation, as a visual picture related directly to the reality of the environment. And this is how sonar works - a machine, based on applied scientific understanding. There are no metaphysics to the functioning of sonar. It is purely cause and effect interactions of very particular arrangements of material substances.

Consequently, no - it does not seem nonsensical to have a purely mechanical description of hearing. What seems nonsensical to me is to impart the human meanings associated with the mechanics of hearing - to the object. i.e. If a tree falls in a forest, it makes a bloody great noise whether anyone hears it or not - because that's how physics works!

You ask: "Accordingly, is wonderment and curiosity exclusively caused by inanimate physical processes? The materialist tries to argue that somehow it does. How is that possible?"

I don't know, but does the fact I don't know mean it doesn't? 400 years after Galileo, we still refer to the sun rising. Does not your approach imply that for all of history up to 1634 - the sun revolved around the earth? Whereas, it seems more likely that there is in fact an objective state of affairs we dimly perceive and struggle to understand. No offence; it's just one wonders how emotionally invested you are in imagining human perception a somehow central and necessary aspect of reality? Flattery will get you nowhere with me!
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 12:08 pm
Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:26 am
Mercury wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 11:56 am
Mercury wrote: October 22nd, 2022, 7:04 pm Materialism is only nonsensical until you are kicked in the balls!
Then suddenly, it becomes blindingly clear, that in reality, there are at least two things!
Consul wrote: October 23rd, 2022, 10:23 amHere's Samuel Johnson's famous "refutation" of Berkeley's immaterialism:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"

(Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, 1791. p. 257)

Unfortunately, Berkeley's immaterialism cannot be refuted in this way. He can simply reply that there are no genuinely material things involved in that situation, because all aspects of it, including the stone and your foot, are nothing but ideas in your mind.
Thank you for the informative and interesting quote. Unsurprisingly, I'm inclined to disagree; not least because it requires far greater explanation of Berkeley to refute apparent materialism Johnson demonstrates, than it does to accept the foot and the stone exist - and so falls afoul of Occam's Razor regarding multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but 3017Metaphysician's multiple threads all seem to suggest that an inability to wholly comprehend a thing, somehow refutes its very existence. That's not a valid inference.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 8:13 amMecury!

Exclusive materialism not only can't explain material existence (where it came from; why, what, how, etc.) but in the spirit of Berkely, can't explain the causal powers of thoughts and ideas over physical matter (thoughts and ideas causing physical action and behavior-animate and inanimate objects).

The short answer is that reality consists of both material and immaterial phenomena. As per the video, the argument is about primacy. For example, how does the information narrative emerge from the matter narrative. Thoughts and ideas correspond to information processing. And for humans, information itself causes physical action, behavior, and other quality of life stuff relative to one's Will, and feelings about things.

It seems no matter how you analyze it, the exclusivity of materialism is nonsensical.
I've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world. I don't want to hold you responsible for what others have expressed, like Kaleido's statement here:

"Finally, I conclude by reminding you that in a universe in flux there is no material besides the flux. What we call material is merely another kind of immaterial. Words confuse us here, because language presupposes materialism, it presupposes the belief in "things". But in reality there are no "things"."

For it is this - strong metaphysical subjectivism for want of a better term, with which I strongly disagree; as opposed to your rather more modest statement here: "The existence or identity of a thing (or situation) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other."

Of this, I would merely ask - is not the mountain a mountain whether it is observed or not? Was the mountain not a mountain already a million years before anything with two vestiges of intelligence to rub together laid an eye upon it? Did the sea not crash upon the shore a billion times before a human footprint was made in the sand, did not the earth turn into light a billion times, before humans experienced the dawn and thought - mistakenly, that the sun rises?
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 10:33 am Mercury!

One can easily think of it this way. The human perception of sound has two meanings. The meta-physical and the physical, is generally parsed as a vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves). This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical (consciousness) definition, respectively.

Taking it one step further, in the context of primacy, let's suppose one wishes to listen to the sounds of music. Their own Will has causal powers in that action or human need to feel the effects of music. Upon their perception of sound, they have feelings which have cause and effect (causal powers). That simple example presupposes the Will taking primacy in their need to listen to music. Is that phenomenal experience of the Will, all physical, meta-physical, or both? If it's both (the correct answer), which takes primacy in that scenario? The feelings associated with the need to hear music(?).

Neuron's themselves do not actually cause the need to listen to music. And with respect to inanimate objects, what are the causes of quantum phenomenon/non-local behavior of a thing... . In other words, if neurons had causal powers, there would exist talking trees, angry neurons, talking planets, ad nauseum. And in quantum phenomena, what causes that Einsteinian spooky action at a distance(?).

Remember, the exclusivity of materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Seems nonsensical, no?

To answer your concerns, the causes of those things existing not only can't be fully explained physically (no one knows where Singularity came from, much less the why's, where, how, etc.) but the nature of the questions themselves, and resulting theories themselves, requires a mind that wonders and is curious about stuff. Accordingly, is wonderment and curiosity exclusively caused by inanimate physical processes? The materialist tries to argue that somehow it does. How is that possible? And how are inanimate objects (quantum non-locality) coded in such a way that causes its behavior? In other words, where are all the instructions in the hunk of dirt?

Just some more things to monder.
The mechanics of a bat's hearing are not entirely different to the mechanics of human hearing. Sound creates vibrations that travel through the air at approximately 700mph, and are detected and interpreted by the listener. In a bat, vibrational energy occasions - not so much a sensation, as a visual picture related directly to the reality of the environment. And this is how sonar works - a machine, based on applied scientific understanding. There are no metaphysics to the functioning of sonar. It is purely cause and effect interactions of very particular arrangements of material substances.

Self-awareness (the biological complexities of self-consciousness, intellect, sentience, volition/choice and so on), makes your argument irrelevant, a non sequitur. We are discussing the qualities of the conscious experience. Unless of course, you can demonstrate bats have a Will that causes them to pick different sounds from a multitude of sources, much less the choice to understand music theory (chord progressions, key signatures, cadences, and so on). In other words, please feel free to parse the differences between bats and their instincts, vs human quality of life stuff. Please share if you can!

Consequently, no - it does not seem nonsensical to have a purely mechanical description of hearing. What seems nonsensical to me is to impart the human meanings associated with the mechanics of hearing - to the object. i.e. If a tree falls in a forest, it makes a bloody great noise whether anyone hears it or not - because that's how physics works!

Your premise, at the very least, is self-refuting. It takes a mind that causes one to care about nonsensical things in the first place. Alternatively, having a "purely mechanical" explanation of hearing would leave out purposeful existence (teleology). You know, the human need(s) to listen to music, and other qualitative stuff. Otherwise, you'd have to argue for 'pure objectivity' of some kind, like say reducing all people to "mechanical" objects. Surely, humans do not want to be treated as such, nor do they think of themselves as purely objects. No?

You ask: "Accordingly, is wonderment and curiosity exclusively caused by inanimate physical processes? The materialist tries to argue that somehow it does. How is that possible?"

I don't know, but does the fact I don't know mean it doesn't? 400 years after Galileo, we still refer to the sun rising. Does not your approach imply that for all of history up to 1634 - the sun revolved around the earth? Whereas, it seems more likely that there is in fact an objective state of affairs we dimly perceive and struggle to understand. No offence; it's just one wonders how emotionally invested you are in imagining human perception a somehow central and necessary aspect of reality? Flattery will get you nowhere with me!
I'm not following you there. What are you trying to argue? Are you thinking that there exists "an objective state of affairs" somewhere? Just a hunch...please feel free to elucidate if you can!
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Consul wrote: October 24th, 2022, 10:54 am
Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:26 amI've been reading in patches, but I thought it was you who cited a quote from Einstein denying the existence of the material world.
:?:
Einstein was not an immaterialist à la Berkeley!
Consul!

Great point and ensuing distinction(s)! Hopeful Mercury can add some interpretation. But back to this notion of primacy verses the dichotomization of reality, it's hard to refute that 'things' cannot exist without first being perceived. As such, you may have read this little anecdote:

While physicists and good friends Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr were equally instrumental in founding quantum mechanics, the two had very different views on what quantum mechanics said about reality.[8] On one of many daily lunchtime walks with fellow physicist Abraham Pais, who like Einstein was a close friend and associate of Bohr, Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to Pais, and asked: 'Do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?" As recorded on the first page of Subtle Is the Lord, Pais' biography of Einstein, Pais responded to the effect of: 'The twentieth century physicist does not, of course, claim to have the definitive answer to this question.' Pais' answer was representative not just of himself and of Bohr, but of the majority of quantum physicists of that time, a situation that over time led to Einstein's effective exclusion from the very group he helped found. As Pais indicated, the majority view of the quantum mechanics community then and arguably to this day is that existence in the absence of an observer is at best a conjecture, a conclusion that can neither be proven nor disproven



Some additional fodder ala Berkeley:


Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[9] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[9] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today, meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard.

We shall not use one word to define two different things. If we define sound as waves, what word shall we use to describe the "sound" we hear? Here, we are talking about two different things. For a stone, a stone only senses air waves. Sound is meaningless to stone. Because stones cannot convert air waves into sound. Of course we shall use sound as the thing we hear. Then the waves between the vibration source and our ears, we shall not also use the same word “sound”. It is just air waves. This is a physics argument, not philosophy argument.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Mercury »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 1:19 pmI'm not following you there. What are you trying to argue? Are you thinking that there exists "an objective state of affairs" somewhere? Just a hunch...please feel free to elucidate if you can!
Thank you so much. I do so appreciate you trying to understand the description of my position; even if your understanding is largely based upon hunches!

My position is not dissimilar to that of Berkeley - whom, I'm told refuted immaterialism by kicking a large stone with great force. To me it is self-evident that objective reality exists, and I cannot accept that you genuinely believe otherwise, or act otherwise in your day to day life.

What then, is this philosophy that exists in contradiction of your every assumption, and action, and relation to everything in the world if it is not the utmost in esotericism and sophistry?

What are its origins if not Descartes intellectually cowardly response to the Church's imprisonment and trial of Galileo for the heresy of elevating rationalism and materialism over spiritualism and scripture?

What future does your philosophy map out for man but one in which 10 billion solipsists are unable to agree upon any objective fact, nor are therefore able to act appropriately in relation to objective reality to secure their continued existence?

That's my overall position, insofar as I am able to describe it. I am of the view that life exists in a truth relation to reality from the DNA up; through physiology, unto behaviour, and for us, intellect - and that, validity to objective reality is necessary, at every level - to survival. I don't know if you'd call that materialism or objectivism - but it's certainly inconsistent with metaphysical subjectvism.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Mercury »

* Correction. The above should read: "My position is not dissimilar to that of Samuel Johnson..." from this quote:


Here's Samuel Johnson's famous "refutation" of Berkeley's immaterialism:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'"

(Boswell, James. Life of Samuel Johnson, Vol. 1. London: Baldwin, 1791. p. 257)
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 4:39 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 1:19 pmI'm not following you there. What are you trying to argue? Are you thinking that there exists "an objective state of affairs" somewhere? Just a hunch...please feel free to elucidate if you can!
Thank you so much. I do so appreciate you trying to understand the description of my position; even if your understanding is largely based upon hunches!

My position is not dissimilar to that of Berkeley - whom, I'm told refuted immaterialism by kicking a large stone with great force. To me it is self-evident that objective reality exists, and I cannot accept that you genuinely believe otherwise, or act otherwise in your day to day life.

What then, is this philosophy that exists in contradiction of your every assumption, and action, and relation to everything in the world if it is not the utmost in esotericism and sophistry?

What are its origins if not Descartes intellectually cowardly response to the Church's imprisonment and trial of Galileo for the heresy of elevating rationalism and materialism over spiritualism and scripture?

What future does your philosophy map out for man but one in which 10 billion solipsists are unable to agree upon any objective fact, nor are therefore able to act appropriately in relation to objective reality to secure their continued existence?

That's my overall position, insofar as I am able to describe it. I am of the view that life exists in a truth relation to reality from the DNA up; through physiology, unto behaviour, and for us, intellect - and that, validity to objective reality is necessary, at every level - to survival. I don't know if you'd call that materialism or objectivism - but it's certainly inconsistent with metaphysical subjectvism.

Gosh Mercury, I really don't know where you're going with your argument. I mean, please forgive me, this sounds a bit like a rant of sorts. What I was asking is how you support your world view or otherwise your philosophy corresponding to the exclusivity of Objectivity.

For instance, 'objects' exist. And, so do 'subjects', yes? Let's start with the basic's then work our way up. I'm thinking once we establish that both subjects and objects exist, we then can parse their properties. Agreed?

Unless of course you wish to deny 'subjects'. As such, you would then have to support your position accordingly.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Materialism is nonsensical III (Information systems paradox)

Post by Mercury »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 25th, 2022, 8:41 am
Mercury wrote: October 24th, 2022, 4:39 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 24th, 2022, 1:19 pmI'm not following you there. What are you trying to argue? Are you thinking that there exists "an objective state of affairs" somewhere? Just a hunch...please feel free to elucidate if you can!
Thank you so much. I do so appreciate you trying to understand the description of my position; even if your understanding is largely based upon hunches!

My position is not dissimilar to that of Berkeley - whom, I'm told refuted immaterialism by kicking a large stone with great force. To me it is self-evident that objective reality exists, and I cannot accept that you genuinely believe otherwise, or act otherwise in your day to day life.

What then, is this philosophy that exists in contradiction of your every assumption, and action, and relation to everything in the world if it is not the utmost in esotericism and sophistry?

What are its origins if not Descartes intellectually cowardly response to the Church's imprisonment and trial of Galileo for the heresy of elevating rationalism and materialism over spiritualism and scripture?

What future does your philosophy map out for man but one in which 10 billion solipsists are unable to agree upon any objective fact, nor are therefore able to act appropriately in relation to objective reality to secure their continued existence?

That's my overall position, insofar as I am able to describe it. I am of the view that life exists in a truth relation to reality from the DNA up; through physiology, unto behaviour, and for us, intellect - and that, validity to objective reality is necessary, at every level - to survival. I don't know if you'd call that materialism or objectivism - but it's certainly inconsistent with metaphysical subjectvism.

Gosh Mercury, I really don't know where you're going with your argument. I mean, please forgive me, this sounds a bit like a rant of sorts. What I was asking is how you support your world view or otherwise your philosophy corresponding to the exclusivity of Objectivity.

For instance, 'objects' exist. And, so do 'subjects', yes? Let's start with the basic's then work our way up. I'm thinking once we establish that both subjects and objects exist, we then can parse their properties. Agreed?

Unless of course you wish to deny 'subjects'. As such, you would then have to support your position accordingly.
Perhaps first you could explain how you, now suddenly, assert the existence of the object world. Or do you, or not? The idea that the object world does not exist, or is created by conscious experience occurs frequently in this thread, and in subjectivist philosophy and academia more generally. This seems more consistent to me - with Descartes method of radical doubt, where he dismisses the object world and everything in it as a possible deception, to identify his certain truth 'I think therefore I am.' But the subject thus described has no access to the object world. It is a purely solipsistic truth - a thinking thing falling into nothing forever. How do you rescue you subject from this terrible, terrible fate - and place him back in the object world - where he confidently asserts that the subject exist, relative to an object world that is somewhat illusory? It's methodologically unsound. It makes no sense. You cannot insist materialism is flawed because the object can only be assumed, while overlooking the solipsistic consequences of the methodology by which the certain truth of the subject is asserted.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021