I don't know what that means, what are you trying to argue? I've read your response several times but am not sure what issue you're addressing out of those three I mentioned. Please share your theory (of everything) if you are able! Remember, the general meaning of Materialism is that it attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything, in terms of 'exclusive' material events.Mercury wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 7:59 pmMercury wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 3:57 pmDo you imagine matter does not embody information? Have you ever looked at a snowflake? The fractal geometry and symmetry - not dissimilar to crystals, or other atomic structures of matter, is information. Information is a quality of matter. I'll accept a distinction between animate and inanimate; and a need to explain how that occurs, but information and matter are not a dichotomy. Who sold you that pup? Aristotle?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 3:11 pmSure! Evolution implies emergence. Hence, you must demonstrate how the information narrative emerges from that matter narrative. Otherwise, who is, in your words, "throwing together endlessly" the ingredients? Please share your theory if you have one!
Haven't we moved on from an earth, wind, fire and water conception of matter?
You realise the cake recipe was a metaphor, and I was responding in terms of that metaphor, right? There isn't anyone on a primordial earth stirring the primordial soup. There's just hot, cold, lightning, wind, solar radiation, gravitation, acting on chemical elements over unimaginable amounts of time - until a cake happens. The cake, in this sense being an RNA molecule - chemical elements arranged in such a way they are able to divide lengthwise, attract their chemical oppsitwe from the environment and so reproduce. These then joined together to form DNA, that produces proteins, that form a cell, that then incorporates mitochondria, ingests chemical and solar energy, excretes oxygen as a waste product, poisons its environment and almost dies out, but a few survive, and they reproduce, join together, form multicellular lifeforms - and boom, a billion years later, you!No, no - the obvious problem is that you cannot explain anything. Your solipsistic subject cannot rely on the senses, or be certain that the objective world exists. You cannot put one foot in front of the other, certain that you will not fall into the abyss with every step. And that's if you really have feet! You don't know! You know you exist; you think, and therefore you exist - but that's it. Everything else can be doubted away.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2022, 5:44 pmThank you, lot's to unpack, but the obvious problem in your response are threefold.
1. Information attached to physical matter, like snowflakes, doesn't explain the nature of human existence. There is one set of laws that govern physical matter and another set of laws that govern biological life forms. Are you trying to argue that both of them are the same? And who produces physical theories about matter anyway? A mind?
2. Mind is here, material stuff is here. That's all the ingredients you need right,? The metaphor is indeed germane. So give us a formula that tells us what, where, when and how matter came into existence, creates self-organized biological life forms to emerge from matter and most importantly, why there is something and not nothing. Bake the cake now. You know, like a ToE.
3. And with respect to all the relationships between mind and matter, does a human mind require one to posit a theory in the first place? If it does, do physical neurons tell us we need to produce theories about stuff, or do we tell neurons to produce theories about stuff? How do neurons know that we have needs to theorize about stuff? And why don't neurons (trees and all other material objects) talk and have an intellect? Is that a dichotomy? Absurd?
Remember, Materialism attempts to explain all of existence and/or everything in terms of material events.
Relative to you, and for the sake of a very reasonable assumption that what I perceive exists, I can know things - not everything; but not nothing either. That's why I'm here. Not to provide a material explanation of the universe and everything in it; but to defend an epistemological approach to knowledge that is significant to human survival.
Your argument is patently dishonest. If it weren't for science how could you know about neurons, or anything else? You steal fruit from my orchard to pelt me with. You cannot seriously believe your position is valid - because you are not that stupid, so what are you? Why kick science in the balls on a daily basis - when surely you must realise that it's humankind's best hope of a future. I mean, look around at all the sciency stuff that works - not least the computer in front of you. But no; you won't acknowledge science is valid knowledge until science explains everything, and you mean everything plus why! Why not nothing? You cannot be serious.
Maybe try to argue for some variation or sub-category of materialism to make your case... .
Thanks!