Ancey Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Ya' know, I'm sure we've all heard those arguments of Christians that go along the lines of this: "Atheists and non-religious people are denying so much about the world by going away from faith! They get rid of the spiritual and cling to the material! How sad..." Recently, I thought, what is really wrong with the material? Perhaps they mean "material" like material objects: money, clothes, cars, appearances. Sometimes they mean science. But really, even the vast majority of Christians are also materialists: they like buying new clothes, having a bit of money to burn, new cars, and take care of their appearance. Heck, Republicans are very often Christian, and they want their hard-earned money in their pocket rather than away from their pocket doing other things. So, are they really that much less material? No, not really. But than they have that extra spiritual side so many of us so miss! This includes: praying, talking to the sky daddy, crying over his dead son, asking for forgiveness for being human, ghosts, heaven and hell, tithing, spirits, souls, and a lot of other things that are very hard to explain in a good way and more likely than not, do not exist. For a moment, let's think of what the material world encompasses... It is very much more than money, clothes, cars. All of which these Christians have/use unless they have sworn themselves to nunnery or monkhood. I'll begin a partial list, forgive me in advance for length: food water air shelter trees rivers ponds seas lakes oceans glaciers icebergs plate tectonics trenches abysses mountains fish birds reptiles mammals apes fungi flowers kittens puppies horses clouds sunlight lightbulbs Evolution film computers algebra geometry calculus trigonometry concept of the number zero π circles squares triangles yellow red blue purple orange prisms green rainbows rain thunder lightning metals gems stones igneous rocks metamorphic rocks sedimentary rocks conglomerate rocks economics businesses advertising art writing the Mona Lisa The Sistine Chapel Picasso Da Vinci Einstein Steven Spielberg Alfred Hitchcock Films Music Creativity Imagination Sonnets Lyrics Haikus Poems Puppets Toys Woody Buzz Lightyear Statues Buildings Beds Closets Desks TVs Radios Radiology Medicine Vaccines Viruses Bacteria Surgery Therapy Hearts Stomachs Intestines Brains Synapses Nerves Cerebro-spinal fluid Kidneys Liver Gall Bladder Appendix Vestigial Organs Eyes Ears skulls femurs philanges muscle fibers tendons mucous membranes Noses Hands Feet Legs Arms Necks Penis Vagina Breasts Abdomens Fingers Toes Sex Pregnancies Children Babies Parents Siblings Cousins Uncles Aunts Siblings Friends Boyfriends Girlfriends Fiances Lovers Girls Boys Dancing Breathing oxygen nitrogen hydrogen helium fusion fission Suns Stars Billions and Billions of Stars Continents Tidal forces Physics Chemistry Anatomy Physiology Biology Environments Moons Mercury Venus Earth Mars Meteor Rings Jupiter Saturn Uranus Pluto Makemake Ceres Haumea Eris Solar System Theory of Relativity Mass Energy Time Lightyears Satellites Astronauts Space Exploration Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Life Possibility of Alien Life on other planets Nuclei Atoms Electrons Neutrons Protons Quarks Interstellar Clouds Solar Flares Photosynthesis Climate Weather Coronas Eclipses Dawns Sunsets Twilight Hours Magnetic Spheres North South East West The Milky Way Galaxy (100,000 Light-years across) Constellations Stellar Remnants Dwarf Suns Nucleosynthesis radiation Star Clusters Andromeda Galaxy (2.5 million light-years away) 170 billion Galaxies Found Intergalactic Space Black Holes Dark Matter Nebulae Ring Galaxies The Big Bang Globular Clusters Neutron Stars Supernovas Star Dust And at 92 billion lightyears across: THE KNOWN UNIVERSE ... .. . That material world is very tiny, isn't it? Shame on us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumluvlifilth Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 How about this: I have a friend who used to say we were supposed to do without the "flesh" and focus on God. So I asked her what she meant by the "flesh", like our bodies? She said, oh you know, don't worry about thinking about things like eating, sleeping, breathing, and focus on God instead. So I asked her, so you're supposed to let yourself die, so that you can think about God? She said yes, you are supposed to let your old self die. So I asked her, so you let your old self die, along with yourself because you've stopped worrying about trivial stuff like eating and breathing... so God says murder/suicide is okay? Sweet! I'm starting with you! I earned a punch in the arm for that one, but this is another example of that whole lets ignore everything and focus on god stuff, kinda like the materialism point you brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 From Wiki... In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. These days I tend to think that this kind materialism is misguided. Even Aristotle pointed out 2,000 years ago that material cause is but one mode of explanation. He posited three additional modes, efficient cause, formal cause, and final cause. Even most hard core reductionists would admit efficient and formal causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I have to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, here again... From wiki... Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism and repair. Yet, you're still you-- with all your memories, your personality... If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I have to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, here again... From wiki... Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism and repair. Yet, you're still you-- with all your memories, your personality... If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely," A train may change the cars on it, but it's still a train. Nothing really mystical about exchanging materials and maintaning the organization - subject to the limitations of the material entity. Cut off an arm, and you are an armless human. Cut off the head, and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I'm not in a very good mood at the moment Shyone and that's unfortunate because I can only think to say this. If you want to pursue materialism or reductionism as a universal strategy for obtaining understandings of natural systems then go for it. I think you will be missing some very important aspects of nature, but it's your prerogative. As for me, I'm branching out. I'm looking at new alternatives which focus on organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 I'm not in a very good mood at the moment Shyone and that's unfortunate because I can only think to say this. If you want to pursue materialism or reductionism as a universal strategy for obtaining understandings of natural systems then go for it. I think you will be missing some very important aspects of nature, but it's your prerogative. As for me, I'm branching out. I'm looking at new alternatives which focus on organization. Organization of what? Oh, sorry, material. The irony is that the thing that makes organization interesting is the knowledge of the thing being organized. If holism doesn't build on a foundation of actual knowledge, it is nothing more than ignorant speculation. You must know about atoms to talk about molecules. Once you leave behind all knowledge of the material, you wind up with astrology instead of astrophysics. Or God instead of Nature. There is no mind without brain, no life without chemistry, and nothing at all without matter. If you don't hear the music of matter, you can't dance with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulQ Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I have to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, here again... From wiki... Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism and repair. Yet, you're still you-- with all your memories, your personality... If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely," To help put this into perspective, consider that the material we process tends to be relatively consistent and limited. For example, we are limited to eating very few plant and animal species, all of which tend to relate. Out of those, humans tend to have very specific requirements in order to maintain health; our meat generally needs to be cooked, and we need to balance that out with fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy. Our diet, chosen from within a very limited scope of what we consider food, often defines how we look, feel, and even behave. The human body is a system that relies on a steady flow of the right nutrients so that it can maintain and rebuild itself, and the nutritional needs are very specific. Indeed, we really are what we eat. When it comes to the term "Materialism," this has come to have negative connotations associated with it. The term implies someone who is only interested in buying mass produced products for consumption and disposal, or someone who holds the value of personal possessions above all else, including human relationships. There is often no regard for the philosophical meaning, which is unfortunate; because it is clearly the basis of the advances we have made in science and medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 To help put this into perspective, consider that the material we process tends to be relatively consistent and limited. For example, we are limited to eating very few plant and animal species, all of which tend to relate. Out of those, humans tend to have very specific requirements in order to maintain health; our meat generally needs to be cooked, and we need to balance that out with fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy. Our diet, chosen from within a very limited scope of what we consider food, often defines how we look, feel, and even behave. The human body is a system that relies on a steady flow of the right nutrients so that it can maintain and rebuild itself, and the nutritional needs are very specific. Indeed, we really are what we eat. When it comes to the term "Materialism," this has come to have negative connotations associated with it. The term implies someone who is only interested in buying mass produced products for consumption and disposal, or someone who holds the value of personal possessions above all else, including human relationships. There is often no regard for the philosophical meaning, which is unfortunate; because it is clearly the basis of the advances we have made in science and medicine. Exactly. Materialism is more than just consumption of products: It is the known physical world: even your feelings and emotions are part of the physical world, as they are chemical reactions in your body. The Universe is material: and it is known to span at least 92 billion lightyears: Which means in order to cross its entirity at the speed of light, the time it would take would be several times the current age of the universe (about 6 times, I think). The Material world is an amazing and huge place, including everything from massive suns and vast interstellar space to the pieces of atoms that make up everything with in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I don't really have a scientific background. What is matter? I mean, does science really understand it? If they did, wouldn't they have a unified field theory that works? Why is quantum physics so different from Newtonian physics? Its all beyond me. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied with materialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted July 6, 2010 Author Share Posted July 6, 2010 I don't really have a scientific background. What is matter? I mean, does science really understand it? If they did, wouldn't they have a unified field theory that works? Why is quantum physics so different from Newtonian physics? Its all beyond me. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied with materialism. Matter is really just anything that has a mass and volume. But everything works through matter. Matter can be explained to the subatomic level, which is amazing in and of itself, to think that everything is comprised of tiny pieces that change their properties by how those particles are arranged and how many they are and how they interact with other particles that are grouped together. Than those subatomic particles (the electrons, neutrons, and protons) are further made out of quarks. I'm fuzzy on exactly what a quark is (it wasn't discussed in my AP chemistry class), but it's essentially one of the smallest building blocks of the universe currently known. I am not really a spiritual person in the sense I don't look for ghosts or supernatural activity. But I am absolutely enamored with the complex nature of the world. It's wonderfully brilliant and complicated, yet in a way it is so simple because the universe is comprised of just charges of energy, really. The thing about science is it is growing and always searching for more and knowledge now grows exponentially, in my opinion. Even if we don't know something, it doesn't mean we should give up. It means that more effort should be put forth. I really don't think everything in the universe can be known simply because it IS so vast! Even if we know what is beyond a quark, we still want to know about the rest of the universe and see other planets up close. And we still don't know every intricacy of how the human body works, or how many complex animals work. It would be interesting to find out how true consciousness and intelligence comes about. Perhaps I just don't see materialism the same as you do. I seem the material as literally everything: if it's knowable, it is material, it is a part of this plane of existence we live in- the possibilities are truly endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 There is no mind without brain, no life without chemistry, and nothing at all without matter. If you don't hear the music of matter, you can't dance with reality. Oh for god's sake. Yes there is no mind without brain, etc, just as there is not body without carbon. But the body is the body. And there is mind! And mind is not brain! You just don't get it. Anyway, to the OP. In your list of 'material' things you list the following: concept of the number zero π the Mona Lisa The Sistine Chapel Films Music Creativity Imagination Sonnets Lyrics Poems Puppets Toys Statues TVs Radios Uncles Aunts Siblings Friends Boyfriends Girlfriends Fiances Lovers These are not material. They are product of mind, of the imagination, of the non-material world. They are not created by matter, but by thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulQ Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I don't really have a scientific background. What is matter? I mean, does science really understand it? If they did, wouldn't they have a unified field theory that works? Why is quantum physics so different from Newtonian physics? Its all beyond me. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied with materialism. It is evident that mankind lacks considerable knowledge of materialism; what we don't know is vastly greater than what we do know. The important thing is that it is measurable and quantifiable, so our knowledge of it continues to grow. What is important to notice is that, as we make new discoveries in the materialistic world, we discover explanations for things we once thought belonged in the realm of the spiritual world. As such, like the concept of a god or gods, the spiritual world tends to represent that which we don't understand for people who do not care to pursue the rationale of science. In other words, people use spiritualism to explain the gaps in our knowledge, which to me represents incredible intellectual laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted July 6, 2010 Author Share Posted July 6, 2010 There is no mind without brain, no life without chemistry, and nothing at all without matter. If you don't hear the music of matter, you can't dance with reality. Oh for god's sake. Yes there is no mind without brain, etc, just as there is not body without carbon. But the body is the body. And there is mind! And mind is not brain! You just don't get it. Anyway, to the OP. In your list of 'material' things you list the following: concept of the number zero π the Mona Lisa The Sistine Chapel Films Music Creativity Imagination Sonnets Lyrics Poems Puppets Toys Statues TVs Radios Uncles Aunts Siblings Friends Boyfriends Girlfriends Fiances Lovers These are not material. They are product of mind, of the imagination, of the non-material world. They are not created by matter, but by thought. That might be a bit arguable, I suppose. I suppose the concept of the number one doesn't really belong on that list, or π, imagination, and creativity. I'm not quite sure how to explain this, but I'll try. While the various family member's labels are a construct of our social nature, they would be people that are in your life with an affect on you. They are still flesh and blood beings that affect the chemicals and patterns in your brain: more likely than not, they are people you wish to be with. And those social ties are also a part of your material existence (if you acknowledge that any thought you have is a rxn of some sort in your brain). And again, puppets exist. TVs exist. Their purpose is a part of our thought process (a TV is meaningless if you don't know what its for or how to work it), but they are physical objects, certainly. Music and Poems and Art mentioned above are again meaningless without the brain, but they are physically there (even music, as it is really just the vibrations of particles, as is any noise). There is nothing supernatural about them: the way we interpret them is part of the thought process, though, but I do argue that the thought process is a physical chemical and electrical phenomenon, which is also a repeatable, constant event. You may interpret a song differently the second time you listen to it, but the song is still the same. Well, whatever. I suppose those things might be up to personal interpretation of how thought works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I'm not sure whether materialism is the same as reductionism. Science is the beginning of knowledge, not the fulfillment of "everything". The material world gives rise to thought, which gives rise to creativity, intuition, logic, abstraction, extrapolation, and thinking "outside the box". However, once we get into philosophy, consciousness, metaphysics and so on, it's often easy to become intoxicated on patterns of thinking that are incongruent with the material reality that our speculations are based on. Really, for so many of us it's a balancing act. As for religious people, some seem to think that because you've abandoned "faith" you've somehow abandoned dreams of "what could be". We haven't. We just don't believe that higher states of being can be accomplished by believing in mythical fairy tales dreamed up by ancient tribal warrior clans whose experience of reality then is completely alien to our experience of reality "now". In fact, if you were to go back in a time machine to Biblical times, you would have trouble relating to the cultural motif and mindsets of that day. It would be utterly alien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 Anyway, to the OP. In your list of 'material' things you list the following: concept of the number zero π the Mona Lisa The Sistine Chapel Films Music Creativity Imagination Sonnets Lyrics Poems Puppets Toys Statues TVs Radios Uncles Aunts Siblings Friends Boyfriends Girlfriends Fiances Lovers These are not material. They are product of mind, of the imagination, of the non-material world. They are not created by matter, but by thought. That might be a bit arguable, I suppose. I suppose the concept of the number one doesn't really belong on that list, or π, imagination, and creativity. I'm not quite sure how to explain this, but I'll try. While the various family member's labels are a construct of our social nature, they would be people that are in your life with an affect on you. I included them, as you say because they are social constructs. The important or significance of them, and their subsequent affect on you, are a direct result of a thought about them. Even though the Sistine Chapel, or the Mona Lisa, take physical form, they are significant to us, and impact us because they are imbued with a non-material reality. A reality that comes from, and lives within thought. They are not the same as a piece of wood you stumble over walking down a woodland path. The same is true of being human. We are more, than just chemical process strewn together into some predictable pattern, that if analyzed logically we can understand and quantify it, categorize it and stick it on our shelf of "knowledge". Hardly. Now as far as having an effect. Absolutely yes. Our thoughts will directly affect the material world, and... the material world can and will affect our thoughts in turn. It is not a deterministic world, where one realm determines in entirety the outcome of another. Rather, mind is mind, matter is matter, and there is an interaction between both. Each affecting one another, neither determining or being in utter control of the other. What to me defines materialism, is the view that matter is everything. Essentially, that mind is an illusion. I disagree. Logic disagrees. Science disagrees. (BTW, we are way beyond viewing materialism in the sense of consumerism). They are still flesh and blood beings that affect the chemicals and patterns in your brain: more likely than not, they are people you wish to be with. And those social ties are also a part of your material existence (if you acknowledge that any thought you have is a rxn of some sort in your brain). And that material existence is also part of our thought world, as an extension of it. The material world is directly affected by how we think. Our thoughts will directly influence the material world, not just in impacting it through our actions, such as in creating structures that can pollute our Gulfs with oil, but in the sorts of mates we choose through our ideas of what constitutes beauty! We will drive our biological evolution itself, through culture values. And those values are not created or determined by chemical processes. Thought, is an emergent quality of the machine, and as such is not the machine. So yes, these things express themselves in the material world. It's part of the process of evolution. Our world of the interior, in thought, and evolved mind, manifesting itself in the material world. In a real sense of the metaphor, Man is created in the image of God - meaning, we create "God" (or beauty, or ideals) in our thoughts, in our minds, and our actions affect the material world to create a world reflective of that internal world, that non-material world, "manifest in the flesh". Nothing supernatural there. On the contrary, its Natural with a capital N. Music and Poems and Art mentioned above are again meaningless without the brain, but they are physically there (even music, as it is really just the vibrations of particles, as is any noise). A rat has a brain as well. But does it has a depth of consciousness like us that can fathom music? The Brain is simply the organ, not the thought. Again, mind and brain are not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 Ya' know, I'm sure we've all heard those arguments of Christians that go along the lines of this: "Atheists and non-religious people are denying so much about the world by going away from faith! They get rid of the spiritual and cling to the material! How sad..." Recently, I thought, what is really wrong with the material? Perhaps they mean "material" like material objects: money, clothes, cars, appearances. Sometimes they mean science. But really, even the vast majority of Christians are also materialists: they like buying new clothes, having a bit of money to burn, new cars, and take care of their appearance. Heck, Republicans are very often Christian, and they want their hard-earned money in their pocket rather than away from their pocket doing other things. So, are they really that much less material? No, not really. The issue of insurance comes to mind. Buying insurance to protect against the loss of material property is a sure sign that a person does not trust the spiritual to provide if calamity strikes. How many Christians cling to insurance policies when they suffer a material loss? I suspect they file just as many claims as unbelievers do in order to recover material that's damaged or stolen. If they really believed, there would be no need for such base and crass instruments as insurance to protect them and provide for their well-being. That's what Jesus and the Holy Spirit are supposed to take care of. As the Bible says, faith as small as a mustard seed will insure that a person can work great wonders and protect themselves. The church or individual believer that buys insurance (other than mandated by law), has provided a clear sign that their faith is superficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 So yes, these things express themselves in the material world. It's part of the process of evolution. Our world of the interior, in thought, and evolved mind, manifesting itself in the material world. In a real sense of the metaphor, Man is created in the image of God - meaning, we create "God" (or beauty, or ideals) in our thoughts, in our minds, and our actions affect the material world to create a world reflective of that internal world, that non-material world, "manifest in the flesh". Nothing supernatural there. On the contrary, its Natural with a capital N. Absolutely. Which is why we are getting to a point in our evolution where control over our future is shifting from the innate natural process of nature to the dreams and choices of human imagination. Over the next few centuries, evolutionary decisions will become more the discretion of humanity rather than the raw lathe of Nature. Bio-medicine, nanotech, quantum computing, and matter/energy transfiguration technologies will allow us to map our own future. It's wonderful and at the same time frightening. Since it asks the question: "Change into what?" Even Gods must have a childhood. Ours may be just ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 So yes, these things express themselves in the material world. It's part of the process of evolution. Our world of the interior, in thought, and evolved mind, manifesting itself in the material world. In a real sense of the metaphor, Man is created in the image of God - meaning, we create "God" (or beauty, or ideals) in our thoughts, in our minds, and our actions affect the material world to create a world reflective of that internal world, that non-material world, "manifest in the flesh". Nothing supernatural there. On the contrary, its Natural with a capital N. Absolutely. Which is why we are getting to a point in our evolution where control over our future is shifting from the innate natural process of nature to the dreams and choices of human imagination. Over the next few centuries, evolutionary decisions will become more the discretion of humanity rather than the raw lathe of Nature. Bio-medicine, nanotech, quantum computing, and matter/energy transfiguration technologies will allow us to map our own future. It's wonderful and at the same time frightening. Since it asks the question: "Change into what?" Even Gods must have a childhood. Ours may be just ending. The difficulty is that our evolved consciousness has not come to a place that it can reign in and balance out our destructive tendencies, which now with our evolving technologies can unleash destruction on scales never possible in our past. Resources are not virtually limitless as in our past, but we are soon to hit a critical point. If our consciousness on the whole cannot evolve a sense of awareness of this interdependence, this interconnection, this relationship of mind and thought and morality with the material world, then what we will have will be a product of a pathological dissociation. It will take an evolved mind beyond materialism to lead us towards awareness of, and consistent actions towards our entire world, globally: which includes not just our ecosystems, but social and cultural relations. It is not materialism that will make us global-centrically aware. Reducing everything down philosophically to the machine, we will never understand the "spirit" that drives us, that drives our evolution, in the sense of a meaningful and changing connection with it within ourselves, and ourselves with it. Head-knowledge of the machine, technological knowledge, says nothing of the spirit of man (to use that symbolic term). Is it important to have and use science in our understanding of the natural world? Absolutely yes. One key component has been that it allowed us to differentiate the natural world from the control and influence of magical creatures in the products of our mythological systems. It has allowed our reason to move beyond that stage to the next level. However, the natural, material world is not 'all there is'. And that is what defines materialism; the philosophical position that everything can be reduced down to that. That is not a conclusion of science, but a conclusion of a philosophy, a worldview. Philosophically speaking, it is a downward glance, not an upward one. And it is my belief, based not just on what I feel within me, but on reason and rationality, that the heart, the mind, the will, the non-material realm of our interior reality that can and will transform our world: either in into an integration through our evolved consciousness; or a destruction through a dissociation within ourselves. All that to come back to the OP, does this mean the Christian has something to say to this? Well, mostly when I hear them speak of this it is as dissociated from the whole as materialism, just the flip side of it. They would say that going the path of science and reason is bad, and you need spirituality (embodied in their minds by their system of god and sacrifices); materialism says only the natural world without mythic gods is the true path to salvation, so to speak. I would say both are partially right. We need both, a spiritual sensibility freed from mythic deities controlling the natural world; understanding the natural world for what it is, while embracing the inner human in an enlightened mind. Neither the natural world nor the inner person are controlled and manipulated by mythical gods; nor is the natural world nor the inner person controlled and manipulated by a material world alone. There is influence, causation, agency, emergence, evolution, all these as part of a system of interaction and interconnection of the physical, the biological, the mental, and beyond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I felt compelled to make a video that compares and contrasts materialism and holism, but it's not yet complete. It was mostly for my own edification, but I may share it if it has anything of merit. I doubt it would change anyone's mind. Um, brain. Anyway, reductionism versus materialism: They aren't the same. Reductionism is focused on disassembly and reassembly - examining the component parts in an effort to understand "how something works." Materialism states that the material is all there is, but this can easily be misunderstood to say that materialists don't understand or care about organization, order, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. Still, both materialism and reductionism have in common that there is no supernatural and that everything is material. Really, however, materialism is much broader. It emphasizes complete knowledge rather than partial understanding. I have seen religious holists confuse concepts with spirits. I have seen people talking about the higher order of things without knowing what the "lower order is." Materialists acknowledge the importance of order, but will draw the line at confusing physical forces with spirit. They are two ways of seeing the same thing, and really saying the same thing. There are no major disagreements like mind/body dualism or body/spirit dualism. There is no natural versus supernatural. IOW, I would be careful about mischaracterizing the "other side". It is easy to do however. Perhaps the most significant difference for me is that I want some description, evidence or demonstration of something like "universal intelligence", and I refuse to accept that some things are too complicated to understand - even if they are. Materialism, like science, does not presume to have all the answers, but given a naturalistic framework, the effort should never cease - especially because someone says, "it can't be done." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I felt compelled to make a video that compares and contrasts materialism and holism, but it's not yet complete. It was mostly for my own edification, but I may share it if it has anything of merit. I doubt it would change anyone's mind. Um, brain. FWIW, I don't consider what I'm talking about to be holism. Holistic theories can be just a reductionist in their own right, reducing everything to processes and system dynamics, not just the component parts. It's still the machine, just a more complex machine. You can study traffic patterns and look at the system and attempt to make predictions, but it doesn't talking about the mood of the driver of that one car affecting the whole, who is angry at his life that day. IOW, it can't be reduced to the system either. Anyway, reductionism versus materialism: They aren't the same. Reductionism is focused on disassembly and reassembly - examining the component parts in an effort to understand "how something works." Materialism states that the material is all there is, but this can easily be misunderstood to say that materialists don't understand or care about organization, order, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. Whether its the components or the system, it still is reducing it down to the interactions of the machine, the material. I don't see any non-material components in this; such as all those I extracted from the list the OP I provided above. Whether the components or the processes of the machine, or its system dynamics, it is exactly 1/2 of what we are, of how things interact and evolve. Still, both materialism and reductionism have in common that there is no supernatural and that everything is material. I'm not a materialist and I don't believe in the supernatural. Go figure. There are no tribal, warring deities in my mind; no magic beings who magically make things happen. All I am saying is that Nature is more than the philosophical conclusion of the materialist. Really, however, materialism is much broader. It emphasizes complete knowledge rather than partial understanding. In my view, it offers exactly 1/2 knowledge, which in reality is not knowledge. It is a perspective. I have seen religious holists confuse concepts with spirits. To be clear this would not apply to me. First in that I'm not a holist, and second that I don't confuse concepts or anything with spirits. I don't believe in spirits. Any concept, is a construction of our minds. I have seen people talking about the higher order of things without knowing what the "lower order is." Materialists acknowledge the importance of order, but will draw the line at confusing physical forces with spirit. I frankly don't know any in complex systems theory (holists), who say any physical force is controlled by spirits. Do you? That's not science. Do you understand what Holism is? They are two ways of seeing the same thing, and really saying the same thing. There are no major disagreements like mind/body dualism or body/spirit dualism. There is no natural versus supernatural. Um, no! There are certainly disagreements that are not this artificially created dualism of natural/supernatural which you have just posited. In a way, you've just said, "If you don't think like a materialist, then you are a super-naturalist!" Bunk. That is a logic fallacy. IOW, I would be careful about mischaracterizing the "other side". It is easy to do however. As we've just seen an example of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 I have seen religious holists confuse concepts with spirits. To be clear this would not apply to me. First in that I'm not a holist, and second that I don't confuse concepts or anything with spirits. I don't believe in spirits. Any concept, is a construction of our minds. I have seen people talking about the higher order of things without knowing what the "lower order is." Materialists acknowledge the importance of order, but will draw the line at confusing physical forces with spirit. I frankly don't know any in complex systems theory (holists), who say any physical force is controlled by spirits. Do you? That's not science. Do you understand what Holism is? They are two ways of seeing the same thing, and really saying the same thing. There are no major disagreements like mind/body dualism or body/spirit dualism. There is no natural versus supernatural. Um, no! There are certainly disagreements that are not this artificially created dualism of natural/supernatural which you have just posited. In a way, you've just said, "If you don't think like a materialist, then you are a super-naturalist!" Bunk. That is a logic fallacy. IOW, I would be careful about mischaracterizing the "other side". It is easy to do however. As we've just seen an example of. I didn't have you in mind when speaking of religious holists. Think of a Christian that speaks of concepts like pi and then twists that into the supernatural. I am using the following definition of holism: the theory that the parts of any whole cannot exist and cannot be understood except in their relation to the whole; "holism holds that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"; "holistic theory has been applied to ecology and language and mental states" I have also found that some holists have a mystical side, like Bohm. I also think that some religious people have coopted holism, perhaps in the same way quantum mechanics has been used by DePak Chopra. In holism the characteristics of atoms enable unique molecular structures that have allowed for the origin of life. This interpretation opens the door to religion and the possibility of a Divine Creator. You wrote: There are certainly disagreements that are not this artificially created dualism of natural/supernatural which you have just posited. In a way, you've just said, "If you don't think like a materialist, then you are a super-naturalist!" Bunk. That is a logic fallacy. And you have totally misunderstood and mischaracterized what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulQ Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 A rat has a brain as well. But does it has a depth of consciousness like us that can fathom music? The Brain is simply the organ, not the thought. Again, mind and brain are not the same. I have given this considerable thought as well, and the best analogy that I can come up with is that of a DC generator. A DC generator is a machine that converts mechanical movement into electricity. It generates this electricity by setting up magnetic fields, then cutting those magnetic fields, inducing electrical current in the coil. As long as the magnets produce magnetic current, and as long as there is some mechanical force turning the rotor, electric current is produced. The electricity doesn't exist without these things, and if even one component of the generator is missing or damaged, the electric current cannot be produced, no matter how much effort we put into turning the rotor. Our mind to our brain is much like DC current is to the DC generator. With that DC current, we are able to do things much more complex than what we could achieve with the simple mechanical turning of the rotor. Likewise, our brains are chemical machines that continuously turn chemical energy into what is our mind. Damage either, and the generation of mind/electricity may be impaired or stopped. The problem with the brain is that it is much more delicate than any DC generator, and without a constant supply of nutrients and oxygen, tends to break down into an irreparable state rather quickly. When the generator ceases to function, the electricity it generated ceases to exist. When our brains cease to function, our consciousness ceases to exist. Brain waves, like electrical current and voltage, can be measured like anything else in the material world. They are quantifiable and are directly linked to the functioning of the brain. It's obvious that, in light of modern day knowledge, any notion that the mind can exist without the brain is little more than wishful thinking. The only thing of us that exists beyond our conscious existence is the work we do while we are alive. Our memories live on in our children and those who come after us, and also in any significant achievements we may accomplish. Do we really need more than this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 A rat has a brain as well. But does it has a depth of consciousness like us that can fathom music? The Brain is simply the organ, not the thought. Again, mind and brain are not the same. I have given this considerable thought as well, and the best analogy that I can come up with is that of a DC generator. A DC generator is a machine that converts mechanical movement into electricity. Not to seem to nitpick, but this is not DC. A DC source is a static potential (Voltage) of an over-abundance of electrons and deficiency of electrons typically created through chemical processes (a battery). It has both a positive and negative charge at opposite ends of a material seeking a means to discharge. When you attach a wire from one end of that potential to the other, it discharges to neutral balancing out the number of electrons. Add a load and a device on this wire, and work is accomplished; heat is generated, a bulb burns, and fan turns, etc. AC (alternating current) is created through passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux (or vise versa). And to add for good measure, another source of potential is created by electrostatic build-up, a storing of this abundance and deficiency potential on opposite sides of a material that doesn't allow for an easy discharge. This is a capacitor which stores this potential. Clouds and earth and air in between is the best example of this, with it negative and positive build up of electrons created in storm activity. In all of these examples, electrons, the bits being put into motion that create what we call electricity (the "flow" of electrons), exist with or without the machines that create the environment to set them in motion in a 'directed' fashion which we call electricity. Electricity is again, electrons in motion. Another example, waves do not exist without wind (as one source of wave potential), but water does. This is going to force us back to that tough question of defining words like mind or consciousness. Shyone invariably associates consciousness with intelligent, directed, human thought processes. Hence why in his objection above which I didn't have time to respond to, he states he never sees "Intelligence" in the universe. I will try to offer some more thought later as time permits in another post that may help get around this equation of how human brains manifest consciousness with the definition of consciousness itself. Let's just say for this example, the brain is like that battery with a whole circuit of loads that takes all these 'electrons' and manifests them. The manifestation of them, in a circuit, becomes its own thing. A computer is not electrons, but a world put created by harnessing electrons and putting them to work in a certain manner. If you take away the computer, you do not destroy electrons. If you destroy electrons, then you will destroy the computer. The higher level is built on the lower level, and destroying the higher level will not destroy the lower level, but destroy the lower level and everything above collapses. I don't think we have an argument that mind is dependent on brain. What we do have an argument on is that mind and brain are one and the same. They are not. This is like saying a computer program is the circuit board. And for proof, you remove the power cord! "You see, without the power it doesn't exist. It therefore is the power cord". No it's not. It's built upon it, but it is not it. Nor can be understood by understanding power alone. The computer is vastly more complex that just 'electrons in motion'. The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it? I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints. For now I'll just toss this out there: I think defining consciousness will be key to understanding what we mean when we say things like "mind". For now, let's say consciousness equals internal depth. The greater the complexity of the machine, the greater the internal depth. Mind is the manifestation of greater internal depth through a more complex machine, the brain. Take away the brain, destroy what manifests mind, and you do not destroy depth; in a sense like you would not destroy electrons by smashing a battery. You simply take away the means of manifesting depth to that degree, but not depth itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it? I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints. You make materialism seem superficial. Nice strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts