Materialism is nonsensical VI (subjectivism v. objectivism)

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Philosopher’s, Metaphysicians and Materialists!

This is latest installment concerning the critique of Materialism, and now considers some of the meanings and implications of subjective observers in the world of perceived reality. Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it. While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical. In other words, this further corresponds to a sense of objectivity (an independent existence/physics) and subjectivity (a metaphysical existence/experience) when trying to understand reality:

Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] 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 definition, respectively.

And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism), how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same? Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel. And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Is the exclusivity of Material events (causes and effects) still nonsensical? I think so... .

[ernestm]

Hello Philosopher’s, Metaphysicians and Materialists!

This is latest installment concerning the critique of Materialism, and now considers some of the meanings and implications of subjective observers in the world of perceived reality. Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it. While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical. In other words, this further corresponds to a sense of objectivity (an independent existence/physics) and subjectivity (a metaphysical existence/experience) when trying to understand reality:

Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] 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 definition, respectively.

And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism), how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same? Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel. And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. Is the exclusivity of Material events (causes and effects) still nonsensical? I think so... .

if not naive, with supervenience.

[N693]

It's worse than that: the implicit claim to metaphysical objectivity, or what Thomas Nagel calls a "view from nowhere" (See also John Searle's Chinese Room Experiment).

The typical internet materialist always and invariably responds by missing the boat: he just can't understand that his claims that the chemicals in his brain can make objective assessments is the problem. Chemicals just exist and do whatever they do, they do not magically obey some metaphysical law.

[3017Metaphysician]

It's worse than that: the implicit claim to metaphysical objectivity, or what Thomas Nagel calls a "view from nowhere" (See also John Searle's Chinese Room Experiment).

The typical internet materialist always and invariably responds by missing the boat: he just can't understand that his claims that the chemicals in his brain can make objective assessments is the problem. Chemicals just exist and do whatever they do, they do not magically obey some metaphysical law.

Agree. There are both laws governing matter (physics), and laws governing information processing (biology). In either case, they are metaphysical. Take for example your own Will. You give your body instructions on how to behave. And your body also provides you feedback. Hence, ineither caes it's a causal loop that involves information processing, instruction, and otherwise metaphysical laws or entities/properties of a thing-in-itself. Same with quantum entanglement/non-locality.

As Davies alludes in the opening, a Victorian physicist would explain reality via particles. Today, it's equations. You know, like that thing which breaths fire into the Hawking equations. Otherwise, the Materialist once again, is in a pickle because mathematics is a metaphysical language!

Materialism keeps losing the battle!

[N693]

Tell me more: is it the laws that have an immaterial cause? Or the information has an immaterial cause? When I tell my body what to do am I something other than the "laws" I'm obliged to follow? What are "laws"? How does it work?

[3017Metaphysician]

Tell me more: is it the laws that have an immaterial cause? Or the information has an immaterial cause? When I tell my body what to do am I something other than the "laws" I'm obliged to follow? What are "laws"? How does it work?

In physics, the laws themselves, like numbers, equations and so forth are not concrete things-in-themselves yet they are attached to things. Like the engineer who designs a physical structure, there is an abstract formula behind the beam and is theoretically attached to the design. They are abstract entities from the mind. And they have the effectiveness of not only describing the physical world (physics), but mass-producing objects (engineering). They cause stuff to happen or exist. they govern material interaction or behavior. And that's all part of the information narrative.

In biology, they (abstract entities) also govern life forms or conscious existence (chemicals, cells, encoded genes, self-directed/self-organized propagation/properties of things) which in-turn also causes things to happen or emerge. For example, subjectively, when you tell your body what to do, you are consciously engaging in the meta-physical Will. That thing which causes you to live or die or otherwise has cause and effect over your own quality of life. A qualitative property or entity that has causal power. All this affects purpose. And that too is all part of the information narrative relative to biological creatures or conscious existence if you like.

So existing things or reality, has two narratives. The matter narrative and the information narrative. The video discusses the primacy of the observer (or Will if you like) as being logically necessary or required for there to exist reality (Idealism). Philosophically, that has corresponding metaphysical implications, as both mind and matter co-exist, and are logically necessary to perceive reality. In perceiving reality, there are two sets of instructions causing things to happen. Quantities of things (matter), and qualities of things (mind).

In short, among other' things', Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

The exclusivity of Materialism itself is not capable of unpacking the how, what, where and why the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative (or vice versa). By itself, it's nonsensical. It's only a half-theory (quantities of things).It's like sating object-object, instead of the naturally occurring subject-object intrinsic to life. Accordingly, it can't explain the qualities of things, nor nature of conscious existence.

[N693]

Neutral Monism? Pan-psychism? How is Neutral Monism not Pan-psychism?

Are you claiming that mind/will/form/instructions arise from causes not originating in matter? From where do they come?

[3017Metaphysician]

Neutral Monism? Pan-psychism? How is Neutral Monism not Pan-psychism?

Are you claiming that mind/will/form/instructions arise from causes not originating in matter? From where do they come?

The materialist doesn't know in part because they don't know where singularity came from. The questions relate to whether matter emerges from information, or information emerges from matter, or some combination of both. In any case, we have two different conceptual landscapes to navigate. And arguably, they are not compatible (physical laws v. biological laws). Meaning, mind and matter, material interactions, immaterial interactions and human behavior, so on and so forth. You know, both quantities and qualities of existing things-in-themselves.

[Sy Borg]

Neutral Monism? Pan-psychism? How is Neutral Monism not Pan-psychism?

Are you claiming that mind/will/form/instructions arise from causes not originating in matter? From where do they come?

The materialist doesn't know in part because they don't know where singularity came from. The questions relate to whether matter emerges from information, or information emerges from matter, or some combination of both. In any case, we have two different conceptual landscapes to navigate. And arguably, they are not compatible (physical laws v. biological laws). Meaning, mind and matter, material interactions, immaterial interactions and human behavior, so on and so forth. You know, both quantities and qualities of existing things-in-themselves.

You don't know anything about the singularity at all, let alone where it came from. Or are you suggesting once again that it is more logical to give up on doing science and replace it with Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology?

I don't think the term "materialist" even makes sense unless you define "material", which you haven't, and probably can't. Nobody else will

The schism is ultimately between monism and dualism (or further segregated models). Some say that the QM/relativity divide shows that reality is dual and, based on current models, it is. If QM and GR are reconciles, then evidence will point to monism.

Others, like Christof Koch, see reality as dual - the physical and the mental, hardware and software. Others see information and stuff as co-dependent. I would say they are both ultimately co-dependent, but they are independent in a relative sense, eg. a living brain is far more densely packed with information than a dead brain, a written computer chip is more information-dense than a blank one. However, both dead brains and blank chips are still replete with information.

Then there's string theory (which should be called "string hypothesis"), which, if correct, posits nine, ten, eleven or twenty-six dimensions, depending on which version of the model. Not easy to know what any of that would mean in an existential sense.

But you don't want to hear any of that, do you? You want to posit the existence of a spiritual realm existing concurrently with this physical one, what Yogananda would call the astral plane, from which the physical world emerged (just as the astral plane emerged from the much larger causal plane). In the end, people want to know what happens when they die - if everything goes blank or if there's a place for one's essence to go, where it can live on as a spirit.

At this stage, it appears that when people die, some will experience NDEs and others nothing. It would seem likely that NDEs end when dying people "go into the light", but everything is speculative in this domain.

[N693]

3017, I didn't ask what the materialist thinks, I asked what your answer is.

Sy, you don't like invented entities but you advocate string theory?

[value]

You don't know anything about the singularity at all, let alone where it came from. Or are you suggesting once again that it is more logical to give up on doing science and replace it with Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology?

A singularity is mathematical fiction. It cannot 'exist' in a material sense since it concerns a potential infinity that is dependent on an observer (the mathematician).

Singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

I don't think the term "materialist" even makes sense unless you define "material", which you haven't, and probably can't. Nobody else will.

It's to bad that Terrapin Station has left the forum. He was recently banned on another philosophy forum and he hasn't been active on this forum or on Philosophy Now forum. He is an outspoken 'materialist'.

Banned

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

[Sy Borg]

3017, I didn't ask what the materialist thinks, I asked what your answer is.

Sy, you don't like invented entities but you advocate string theory?

I stated that string theory should be called the string hypothesis, so I don't see the logic in suggesting that I am an advocate. I consider string hypotheses, amongst other ideas, because it's one of the models on the table and there is enough robust math behind it to warrant extremely expensive tests in the LHC to test it. At current levels of power, superposition was supposed to have been observed by now. As a result, there's been a marked drop in physics students choosing to study string theory, instead opting for quantum loop gravity. However, there is apparently still a chance that superposition will be detected at higher power levels.

[Sy Borg]

You don't know anything about the singularity at all, let alone where it came from. Or are you suggesting once again that it is more logical to give up on doing science and replace it with Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology?

A singularity is mathematical fiction. It cannot 'exist' in a material sense since it concerns a potential infinity that is dependent on an observer (the mathematician).

Singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Agreed.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

I don't really like the parameters. Yes, it's one angle, but it's superficial. It's easy to say that everything has a physical substrate, because that seems to be the case. However, we still only have largely a functional understanding of the physical world, with much still to learn about 95% of reality, aka dark matter and dark energy, and more. At small scales, things become strange. The largest of scales are also not yet understood and perhaps never will be. So I'm not keen to commit to monism or dualism and I think it rather depends on the kind of perspectives employed.

[N693]

From Terrapin: "I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes."

I note the contradiction.

[N693]

I don't know Sy, does string theory ever go the way of alchemy?