An Argument for the Existence of the Metaphysical

[TopekaVI]

Hey all, I'm new to this forum. I come here with an argument that I believe pretty decently refutes the materialistic perspective and suggests the existence of immaterial phenomena.

It is evident, by our basic ability to command our body as we like, that metaphysical, or “immaterial” phenomena exists, and has a tangible impact on the physical, or “material” world. Every function an organism performs, whether voluntary or involuntary, comes from the ‘control center’ of the body, the brain. (And in the case of unicellular organisms the nucleus has an identical function.) The brain issues orders to the muscles to contract and detract using electrical impulses, this much has been proven using purely empirical methods focusing on the physical world. But naturally, as science and philosophy grow more and more fundamental, a crucial question arises: Where is the absolute origin of biological commands, and what is its nature?

If the reader were to do a simple voluntary physical action, such as raising their arm or moving their fingers, we can sketch out a simplified system of causality by tracing the source of the command further and further back. In our simplified model, the movement of one's fingers is a direct result of muscle contraction in one's hand, which can then be traced back to the nervous system, ultimately to the brain. But once we reach the brain, the trail stops. We can no longer physically observe the path that the command takes. The route of command up to this point has been a hierarchical system of commander and commanded, of cause and effect. So as we arrive at the brain, it would make logical sense that there is an even higher level of command that is above the brain, closer to the absolute origin for the movement of one’s fingers. If not, how else could the brain have decided to send the command in the first place? One might say that this simply means that the brain is the head of the hierarchy, that it is the absolute origin, and that it possesses the unique power of independent self-motivation required to issue an original command. The next paragraph will explain why this is impossible.

All actions performed by an organism are the result of motivation. Typically, this motivation is the survival and propagation of the organism and the organism's species. The organism wants to survive, that is its motivation. The materialist would say that the organism is made up entirely of matter, that each function of the organism can be empirically proven to be material and physical. Essentially, the materialist claims that the organism is indistinguishable from matter, that it is merely an organized system of physical things and thus, only an extension of the physical world as a whole. This begs the question, then, how can matter possess intrinsic motivation, or in other words, how can matter want? How can a mere clump of atoms decide that it wants to survive, wants to proliferate and expand? While it is true that matter follows fundamental laws of physics, such that magnetic opposites attract and the entropy in the universe will tend to increase and so on, to cite fundamental laws of physics to argue that matter can in fact possess intrinsic motivation would be to argue that life itself is something that matter tends to approach. There are no laws that I know of that state that atoms tend to make intricate systems of life whose goal is to create even more intricate systems of life. It is for this reason that pure matter, at least as it pertains to biological life, cannot want anything, and therefore cannot be the origin of biological commands.

Wielding the knowledge that matter in a biological system does not possess intrinsic motivation, we can now revisit the system of casualty introduced in the second paragraph with new clarity. As I previously said, it is impossible for the brain to be at the end of the command hierarchy, and, with the newly established proof, the reason is abundantly clear. The brain is a material object, and thus cannot generate original commands, or, motivations, independently. If the brain isn’t the end of the hierarchy, then what is commanding the brain to command the body? This leaves only one source from which the command hierarchy can originate from. If the brain is the final purely material level of the hierarchy, then the subsequent level must be an external, immaterial phenomenon. Beyond the ostensible veil of physical reality, there exists a deeper, metaphysical force that dictates, at the very least, the motivations and actions of complex biological life.

It is important to note that this conclusion is not supported simply because it's an irrefutable explanation for something that empirical science has failed to yet explain. It’s rather supported because it's rooted in an observation of the fundamental nature of matter itself, specifically it's capacity to "want". Matter has no wants, only tendencies, governed by laws of the universe, such as the four fundamental forces. However, once matter starts to have its own intrinsic motivations, goals such as survival and self-propagation that are not inevitable tendencies of matter or laws of the universe, that is when matter turns to life, which can only be commanded by something that is immaterial and thus capable of possessing intrinsic motivation for its own sake. It isn't just a natural consequence of the laws of the universe anymore. One would have to argue that the formation of life itself is a force of the universe to refute this. The biological instinct to survive might be explained by an unfathomably complex cascade of biochemical reactions, but in the end, the goal of that cascade is to aid in the organism’s survival. Why is survival a goal in the first place? If matter can’t set goals, then what can? No amount of scientific discovery can ever change the fact that matter itself cannot possess the intrinsic motivation to create life. It is a fundamental principle of matter.

[Count Lucanor]

Now tell us more about this "immaterial" substance that you have discovered.

What is its fundamental structure?

What laws regulate its behavior?

How come matter has nothing to do with it, yet it has an effect on matter?

[Consul]

Now tell us more about this "immaterial" substance that you have discovered.
What is its fundamental structure?

Immaterial/spiritual substances are zero-dimensional; that is, they have the size of a mathematical point. Something has a structure if and only if it has interrelated parts; but a point is a mereologically simple, i.e. noncomposite, object that doesn't have any parts. Therefore, an immaterial/spiritual doesn't have any structure.

[Count Lucanor]

Now tell us more about this "immaterial" substance that you have discovered.
What is its fundamental structure?

Immaterial/spiritual substances are zero-dimensional; that is, they have the size of a mathematical point. Something has a structure if and only if it has interrelated parts; but a point is a mereologically simple, i.e. noncomposite, object that doesn't have any parts. Therefore, an immaterial/spiritual doesn't have any structure.

Can that assertion presented as a fact of the world be tested in any way? And since it is affirmed while standing inside the domain of the material, how could they remain in a separate domain and at the same time be accessible without being "contaminated" by the material domain?

[Consul]

Immaterial/spiritual substances are zero-dimensional; that is, they have the size of a mathematical point. Something has a structure if and only if it has interrelated parts; but a point is a mereologically simple, i.e. noncomposite, object that doesn't have any parts. Therefore, an immaterial/spiritual doesn't have any structure.

Can that assertion presented as a fact of the world be tested in any way? And since it is affirmed while standing inside the domain of the material, how could they remain in a separate domain and at the same time be accessible without being "contaminated" by the material domain?

I don't believe in the existence of immaterial/spiritual substances, but their structurelessness follows from the very concept of them. So if immaterial/spiritual substances existed, they wouldn't have any structure.

[Count Lucanor]

Immaterial/spiritual substances are zero-dimensional; that is, they have the size of a mathematical point. Something has a structure if and only if it has interrelated parts; but a point is a mereologically simple, i.e. noncomposite, object that doesn't have any parts. Therefore, an immaterial/spiritual doesn't have any structure.

Can that assertion presented as a fact of the world be tested in any way? And since it is affirmed while standing inside the domain of the material, how could they remain in a separate domain and at the same time be accessible without being "contaminated" by the material domain?

I don't believe in the existence of immaterial/spiritual substances, but their structurelessness follows from the very concept of them. So if immaterial/spiritual substances existed, they wouldn't have any structure.

It would be interesting to know how that property is inferred from the very concept of them.

[LuckyR]

The OP has missed the point that there are (were) plenty of unmotivated life forms, ie that not all of life is self motivated. Problem is that life forms not motivated to succeed, biologically, don't pass their genes (which are encoded for a lack of motivation) to the next generation, and thus are continuously dying out.

[Thomyum2]

Hey all, I'm new to this forum. I come here with an argument that I believe pretty decently refutes the materialistic perspective and suggests the existence of immaterial phenomena.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Always good to see new people and new perspectives here.

Every function an organism performs, whether voluntary or involuntary, comes from the ‘control center’ of the body, the brain. (And in the case of unicellular organisms the nucleus has an identical function.) The brain issues orders to the muscles to contract and detract using electrical impulses, this much has been proven using purely empirical methods focusing on the physical world. But naturally, as science and philosophy grow more and more fundamental, a crucial question arises: Where is the absolute origin of biological commands, and what is its nature?

...But once we reach the brain, the trail stops. We can no longer physically observe the path that the command takes. The route of command up to this point has been a hierarchical system of commander and commanded, of cause and effect. So as we arrive at the brain, it would make logical sense that there is an even higher level of command that is above the brain, closer to the absolute origin for the movement of one’s fingers. If not, how else could the brain have decided to send the command in the first place? One might say that this simply means that the brain is the head of the hierarchy, that it is the absolute origin, and that it possesses the unique power of independent self-motivation required to issue an original command. The next paragraph will explain why this is impossible.

...As I previously said, it is impossible for the brain to be at the end of the command hierarchy, and, with the newly established proof, the reason is abundantly clear. The brain is a material object, and thus cannot generate original commands, or, motivations, independently. If the brain isn’t the end of the hierarchy, then what is commanding the brain to command the body? This leaves only one source from which the command hierarchy can originate from. If the brain is the final purely material level of the hierarchy, then the subsequent level must be an external, immaterial phenomenon.

I think you've proposed something interesting here, but I'm afraid I don't find your argument to be 'irrefutable'. The problem I find is that although the brain might be considered to be 'at the end of the command hierarchy, the brain is not a closed system - the 'trail' doesn't stop there because the brain doesn't just issue commands, it also receives stimuli and information from the body, which in turn receive stimuli from the environment. So while the 'commands' themselves may originate in the brain, that doesn't prove that their causal origin is not material. One could argue that brain 'commands' aren't just actions, but are in fact reactions - they are a synthesis of information received from outside through material and biological pathways which the brain transforms into commands when the brain's configuration determinations that a particular response is required.

Beyond the ostensible veil of physical reality, there exists a deeper, metaphysical force that dictates, at the very least, the motivations and actions of complex biological life.

It is important to note that this conclusion is not supported simply because it's an irrefutable explanation for something that empirical science has failed to yet explain. It’s rather supported because it's rooted in an observation of the fundamental nature of matter itself, specifically it's capacity to "want". Matter has no wants, only tendencies, governed by laws of the universe, such as the four fundamental forces. However, once matter starts to have its own intrinsic motivations, goals such as survival and self-propagation that are not inevitable tendencies of matter or laws of the universe, that is when matter turns to life, which can only be commanded by something that is immaterial and thus capable of possessing intrinsic motivation for its own sake. It isn't just a natural consequence of the laws of the universe anymore. One would have to argue that the formation of life itself is a force of the universe to refute this. The biological instinct to survive might be explained by an unfathomably complex cascade of biochemical reactions, but in the end, the goal of that cascade is to aid in the organism’s survival. Why is survival a goal in the first place? If matter can’t set goals, then what can? No amount of scientific discovery can ever change the fact that matter itself cannot possess the intrinsic motivation to create life. It is a fundamental principle of matter.

Yes, I think the question of motivations is the more interesting one. Whether the brain's commands originate from a material or non-material source, the question remains: why is there a motivation for life to arise and endure in the first place?

Not long ago I picked up and read a copy of Robert Pirsig's second book, Lila, and I think he develops this idea in a very compelling way that you might find interesting to read. Here's one passage that caught my attention where he proposes the basic question that I think you're asking here:

Why does any life survive? It's illogical. It's self-contradictory that life should survive. If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature, then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive? Either life is with physical nature or it's against it. If it's with physical nature, there's nothing to survive. If it's against physical nature, then there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature. (p. 162)

It's part of a larger idea that he develops which is that we require a different type of metaphysics to understand certain questions such as these - he argues that we need to move away from the subject/object metaphysics toward what he calls a 'metaphysics of quality'. I won't try to summarize this as I can't do it justice in a short forum post, but perhaps you might give it a look and find it of use.

[TopekaVI]

The OP has missed the point that there are (were) plenty of unmotivated life forms, ie that not all of life is self motivated. Problem is that life forms not motivated to succeed, biologically, don't pass their genes (which are encoded for a lack of motivation) to the next generation, and thus are continuously dying out.

I suppose that you're right, in the early stages of biological evolution there were plenty of useless organisms that died out because they weren't motivated to succeed. My question though is why there are even organisms that want to succeed in the first place. Objectively, in the eyes of the universe, life is useless. There is no grand point to it. So why then, does pure matter feel the need to survive anyway?

I think you've proposed something interesting here, but I'm afraid I don't find your argument to be 'irrefutable'. The problem I find is that although the brain might be considered to be 'at the end of the command hierarchy, the brain is not a closed system - the 'trail' doesn't stop there because the brain doesn't just issue commands, it also receives stimuli and information from the body, which in turn receive stimuli from the environment. So while the 'commands' themselves may originate in the brain, that doesn't prove that their causal origin is not material. One could argue that brain 'commands' aren't just actions, but are in fact reactions - they are a synthesis of information received from outside through material and biological pathways which the brain transforms into commands when the brain's configuration determinations that a particular response is required.

That is a good point. Brain functions are just chemical responses to stimuli. To be honest that's something I would have to consider more deeply. But the main point I'm getting at here is that it doesn't make much sense that matter alone would decide to do seemingly useless things (like go online or watch tv). There would just be no real reason to if everything was made up off stone-cold emotionless matter. Even if we said that ultimately every little useless thing we did was based in some biological system that helps us survive, we still couldn't answer why that was a goal to begin with.

I formulated this little theory during a single school day during my free time, so I by no means believe that it's impenetrable. I posted it here to get some valuable feedback, and that's what you guys have given me, so thank you! I appreciate you all writing back

[LuckyR]

The OP has missed the point that there are (were) plenty of unmotivated life forms, ie that not all of life is self motivated. Problem is that life forms not motivated to succeed, biologically, don't pass their genes (which are encoded for a lack of motivation) to the next generation, and thus are continuously dying out.

I suppose that you're right, in the early stages of biological evolution there were plenty of useless organisms that died out because they weren't motivated to succeed. My question though is why there are even organisms that want to succeed in the first place. Objectively, in the eyes of the universe, life is useless. There is no grand point to it. So why then, does pure matter feel the need to survive anyway?

Oh no. I am talking about each and every day. Every day there are spontaneous mutations of every sort, thus individuals of every makeup, including lack of self motivation. But since only the motivated succeed in passing their genetic material along, the vast majority of life, hundreds of millions of generations later are going to be the progeny of the self motivated. That is just a logical and statistical reality. There is no other way it could be.

[Pattern-chaser]

Several posts here refer to "motivation". I wonder about those living things so simple that it is hard to see how they could be "motivated"?

[LuckyR]

Several posts here refer to "motivation". I wonder about those living things so simple that it is hard to see how they could be "motivated"?

Good point. Driven is probably closer to the mark than motivated. It's just that the OP used motivated.

[Ecurb]

Several posts here refer to "motivation". I wonder about those living things so simple that it is hard to see how they could be "motivated"?

The notion that plants and fungi lack "motivation" is a form of bigotry. Here's the transcript of an interview I heard on NPR:

Moderator: What do you think of the notion that you plants are "unmotivated"?

Chickweed: I hate being called "unmotivated". It's almost as bad as being called a "weed".

Moderator: How would you describe your motivations?

Chickweed: I want to take over gardens, and drive out those silly domestic plants. I want to leave descendants -- then we can rule the world.

Moderator: If you become ruler of the world, what would you do?

Chickweed: I'd ban weed killing sprays, and those sharp devices designed to uproot weeds. I'd also ban the use of the word "weed". Why can't we be called "indigenous plants"? Also, I'm sick of brain injured people being called "vegetables". It's an insult to us plants.

Moderator: Thank you. Perhaps it's time for all of us to recognize that flora just sit around not because of lack of motivation, but because of lack of opportunity. Next on "All Things Considered": are dandelions evil?

[Consul]

I don't believe in the existence of immaterial/spiritual substances, but their structurelessness follows from the very concept of them. So if immaterial/spiritual substances existed, they wouldn't have any structure.

It would be interesting to know how that property is inferred from the very concept of them.

Which property—structurelessness? Well, isn't it obvious that a zero-dimensional object, i.e. a mathematical point, cannot have a structure?

[Pattern-chaser]

Several posts here refer to "motivation". I wonder about those living things so simple that it is hard to see how they could be "motivated"?

Good point. Driven is probably closer to the mark than motivated. It's just that the OP used motivated.

Hmm. I wonder if that makes any difference?

I wonder about those living things so simple that it is hard to see how they could be "driven"?

D'ya see what I mean?