Materialism (physicalism) is dead?

[soulatman]

I would like to make a request to TheJackel:

Please Please Please, Stop equating "NOTHING", with "IMMATERIAL".

Enough is enough now. I think it has been pointed out a million times now, the two are not synonymous. You are putting words, terminologies, and concepts, into the mouths of everyone else.

 

[steve001]

Thanks Iyace - I understood that, my question had been more about how the pattern shows up - which I understand from DR is that the photon/electron itself somehow changes the colour of the back screen.

No. it does not the color of the screen.

When dark and like lines are seen on the screen what is happening to produce them is the wave of the photon or photons is either cancelling out itself/ themselves (dark line) or reinforcing them themselves (bright line). Or if a trough meets a peak you have a net cancellation of energy. but if a trough meets a trough or peak meets a peak you have reinforcement. In short it interferes or reinforces itself. See here where two line of the same color cross you'll get a dark line and the opposite happens when two different colors cross.

 

[steve001]

You either didn't read or else ignored the link altogether . . . because, yes, as the link shows (through other physicists findings!) there is in fact plenty of evidence that they change . . . and you didn't address this in even a cursory dismissal way . . .

I always do a fact checking web search if I'm not sure and to check for any of the latest findings on the question at hand and I still have not found any articles stating conclusively any of the physical constants have changed.

 

[steve001]

Oh my goodness, you're clearly confused and not getting this.

When you say ' us ', what do you mean? Do you mean our brains? Do you mean our mind? You can't just say ' Us, that's who! ', and expect me to know what you mean. Our brain operates in an information system. It does not add equal parts happy and equal parts blue to come up with thoughts; It operates in a neural network. It's our mind that operates in terms of qualia. You asking me if I believe if qualia is made up, with this distinction in mind, is asking me if I believe consciousness itself is 'made up', or if I believe in eliminative materialism. No, I do not.

You don't need to use the English language like a crude tool, especially in conversations such as these that require precision and care. Language has in it the ability to be precise to avoid confusion. ' us ' does nothing to convey to me what you're talking when you're referring to what is having the illusion.

Are you this difficult to talk to in real life? If your friends were to ask you: Hey Iyace do you want to come with us and see the new Thor movie? - would you ask them what do you mean by us? Of course not because you know what they mean when they say us

 

[dmanister]

Isn't the quantum level physical? If not why is the study of it called quantum physics? Can we say continuum boys and girls?

Dualistic thinking is a retrograde approach. A recent line of investigation considers whether the macro world consists of wave functions collapsed under observation, making the absolute separation of subject/object, observer and observed obsolete.

 

[Andrew Paquette]

Isn't the quantum level physical? If not why is the study of it called quantum physics? Can we say continuum boys and girls?

Dualistic thinking is a retrograde approach. A recent line of investigation considers whether the macro world consists of wave functions collapsed under observation, making the absolute separation of subject/object, observer and observed obsolete.

This, your first post, is less respectful of other members than it should be. This is the debate forum, meaning that contrasting perspectives are welcome, but please express your sentiments with more care in the future.

AP

 

[Andrew Paquette]

I always do a fact checking web search if I'm not sure and to check for any of the latest findings on the question at hand and I still have not found any articles stating conclusively any of the physical constants have changed.

It is possible there are articles on the subject you missed, but more importantly, it is rare for any journal article to state that a finding is "conclusive." The standard you use is therefore flawed. I have read a book chapter on this subject and it refers to mainstream sources that admit that these constants have changed. Now some claim that it is the way we write the constants that have changed, not the constants themselves, but as Sheldrake has noted, this is not true. For you to successfully refute this, you will have to either find a proper argument against it, or accept it as true for the sake of discussion here.

AP

 

[Iyace]

Are you this difficult to talk to in real life? If your friends were to ask you: Hey Iyace do you want to come with us and see the new Thor movie? - would you ask them what do you mean by us? Of course not because you know what they mean when they say us

No, but when I'm presenting a paper, or doing work, I don't refer to my subject matter as ' stuff ', nor do I handle extremely complex and easy to confuse subject matter in terms of ' kinda, dunno, and maybs '. We're here talking about something that's very counter-intuitive, and difficult to grasp. If we're not specific by the words we mean someone's going to get lost along the way, or end up talking past each other because we don't understand each other's arguments. When you said 'us', it presents the question of what are you referring to as 'us'. Do you mean our mind, or are you talking about our neuronal network? Certainly, qualia is not a feature of the relation between synapses firing. If that was the case, we would not be thinking in terms of blue or happy, but in terms of neuron A fires and causes neuron B, C, D and Z to activate. Qualia is clearly the feature of a mind. So in that sense, yes, it is certainly real, and not imagined. The only way qualia can be imagined is if you attest to epiphenomenalism, or simply claim that consciousness itself is an illusion. I don't think that is the case.

 

[Dakota Rider]

Here's what the Sheldrake pages says about one of the four constants in question, gravity:

[Sheldrake drivel snipped]

Thanks again for posting Sheldrake drivel, but really, that's the same crap you posted last time.

It's helpful, though, in that it lets everyone see what a shoddy thinker Sheldrake is. What he's saying in those few paragraphs is that gravity has been measured with the least precision out of any of the constants. Gee, thanks for that info Rupert. It happens to be the hardest to measure accurately, since we can't take a star and put it on a scale.

But he's hinting at something more, implying that since the values are imprecise, that therefore they're changing, and that "science" is broken because those dogmatic scientists who are always laughing at him personally are stuck in their paradigm. He's completely wrong about that of course, even mentioning how scientists have considered whether it's changing. The data that Sheldrake ignores is that we can see and make measurements of how things were billions of years ago, because light's not instantaneous. If things had changed significantly we'd be seeing something completely different when looking at objects far away (and therefore long ago).

 

[steve001]

It is possible there are articles on the subject you missed, but more importantly, it is rare for any journal article to state that a finding is "conclusive." The standard you use is therefore flawed.

Of course there could be articles, but something as earth shattering as changing constants would have made headlines on all the science sites I have been perusing for years. I've seen nothing. There are some maybes, but nothing that is unambiguous. Therefore, that is why It is not a flawed position.

I have read a book chapter on this subject and it refers to mainstream sources that admit that these constants have changed.

Ok you read a book. What is the title of the book?

Now some claim that it is the way we write the constants that have changed, not the constants themselves

You proofed this sentence before you typed it right?
,

but as *Sheldrake has noted, this is not true.

You put far too much trust in a man not schooled in physics. He is not an authority and not an expert on the matter.

For you to successfully refute this, you will have to either find a proper argument against it, or accept it as true for the sake of discussion here.

I accept nothing as true until there are facts to back up the claim. That includes opinings of physicists and non-physicists alike whether physical constants have changed. No, I don't have to accept it as true for the sake of argument.

Andrew by all means find any studies that clearly indicate physical constants have changed.

* I copied this from the page Reese linked to in post 277
From Sheldrakes page I quote "But what if the constants really change? What if the underlying nature of nature changes?"
As you can see his presentation is a what if position. But like so many people that have a vested interest in proving to others their understanding is correct they completely ignore the if and argue their position is entirely factual. It is noting more than ruminations though

 

[Bart V]

For the sake of clarity, I'm using ' materialist ' and ' physicalist ' and ' naturalism ' interchangably.
Though I have seen this in skeptical/atheistic circles; Your guys' preferred method of debate is to call everything a strawman. I'd recommend reading the definition of a strawman argument, or take some introductory to logic classes, and then come back. Screaming strawman does nothing to progress any discussion.

What also does not help the discussion is condescending advice.
Especially if your wrong, 'the materialist' you refer to does not hold the position i hold, in fact i do not think you will find her or him at this forum.
You paint the picture of some cretin who got stuck in newtonian physics, of course that is wrong, and of course that is a position that is easier to strike down, therefore a straw man.

If you use materialist ' and ' physicalist ' and ' naturalism ' interchangeably, that is your prerogative, a lot of people do, but then we have to take care we agree upon what it all means in the end.
the position i hold could best be described as scientific naturalism i think.
it is considered a metaphysical position, but as a position that makes the least assumptions possible, it could also be considered as the least metaphysical of the metaphysical positions, if that makes any sense.
we got stuck with the name materialist, and that is fine, as long that is not used to force viewpoints upon us that we do not hold.

I think it is time you recapitulate what you are actually saying, you are starting to confuse me, and maybe even yourself.
on the one hand you complain about this:

I have no point in materialists changing their beliefs to incorporate scientific advance. But if the definition of ' material ' is constantly changing; what's the point of calling yourself a materialist? It's a 'right-now' statement. But we assuredly don't know all that there is to know, and the history of science shows that we find new ontological substances all the time. So it's not intellectual honest to say materialism has been right for hundreds of years, as what materialism has stated as an ontological reality has changed. If it had been right for ' hundreds of years ', then it would still be true that all that exists is matter and energy; And this is not the case.

In which you seem to object to 'materialists' updating their viewpoint as science progresses.

Ont the other hand you say

And materialists don't want to change their minds either.

In which you seem to complain that 'materialists' don't want to update their viewpoint, which is it?

Since you equate naturalism with materialism, i suspect that if you are talking about 'materialism', you actually are saying 'everything that is not supernaturalism'.

 

[Iyace]

What also does not help the discussion is condescending advice.
Especially if your wrong, 'the materialist' you refer to does not hold the position i hold, in fact i do not think you will find her or him at this forum.
You paint the picture of some cretin who got stuck in newtonian physics, of course that is wrong, and of course that is a position that is easier to strike down, therefore a straw man.

If you use materialist ' and ' physicalist ' and ' naturalism ' interchangeably, that is your prerogative, a lot of people do, but then we have to take care we agree upon what it all means in the end.
the position i hold could best be described as scientific naturalism i think.
it is considered a metaphysical position, but as a position that makes the least assumptions possible, it could also be considered as the least metaphysical of the metaphysical positions, if that makes any sense.
we got stuck with the name materialist, and that is fine, as long that is not used to force viewpoints upon us that we do not hold.

I think it is time you recapitulate what you are actually saying, you are starting to confuse me, and maybe even yourself.
on the one hand you complain about this:

In which you seem to object to 'materialists' updating their viewpoint as science progresses.

Ont the other hand you say

In which you seem to complain that 'materialists' don't want to update their viewpoint, which is it?

Since you equate naturalism with materialism, i suspect that if you are talking about 'materialism', you actually are saying 'everything that is not supernaturalism'.

Here, let's hash out some definitions for the sake of the argument being clear. I'm assuming materialism/physicalism to be the same word for a much broader category of beliefs. The point of this thread is materialism/physicalism. You're forgetting that the point of this thread is about materialism and physicalism. Naturalism is a bit of an offshoot, but some of the core tenants are the same.

Let me explain to you what I mean by the two quotes you quotes. Somewhere on this thread, I believe it was steve001, said that materialism has proven successful for 400 years. Materialism IN ITS PAST STATE 400 YEARS AGO was not successful by any means. Todays materialism is far different than yesteryears materialism. It is not fair to state that materialism has been correct for 400 years, if the definition of what material is is changing. Here's the following analogy.

It's as if I'm a Christian, and I'm stating my Christian views are correct. Now, Christ somehow gets disproven. I state that then the fact that Christ has been disproven can be incorporated into my belief. So now I'm a Christian who doesn't believe Christ existed.

Next, God somehow gets disproven. I still consider myself a Christian, even thought I don't believe in Christ anymore. I now state that God does not exist, but that is still compatible with my belief system, since I am able to reincorporate those views into my belief system.

So now I am a Christian who does not believe in God, or in Christ.

Do you believe it is now fair to state that my Christian views have been correct for the 2000 years Christianity has been founded?

Do you believe that this is the same method used in stating that materialism has been correct for 400 years?

I have no problem with PEOPLE changing their views on issues in the wake of new evidence. That's how things should be. I do have a problem with people saying that materialism has more merit than other metaphysics because it has been correct for the 400 years that modern science has been around. This is quite wrong, as materialism has had to change to accept new evidence. This would mean that past materialist ontological and cosmological axioms were wrong.

Do you understand what I mean now? I'm not characterizing current interpretations of materialism as only accepting of Newtonian physics. I'm merely saying that it is almost assured that new materialism is going to be falsified someday, as it has countless times in the past. Anti-Christians are so willing to throw the Old Testament in the face of Christians who state that that was the Old Covenant, and the old rules do not apply. But when a nonmaterialist points out that materialism as a metaphysic has been wrong many times in the past, somehow it's a strawman? Do you feel that that is fair?

 

[JCearley]

I have read a book chapter on this subject and it refers to mainstream sources that admit that these constants have changed. Now some claim that it is the way we write the constants that have changed, not the constants themselves

I am also curious about which book that is (mostly for the 'mainstream sources'.)

You put far too much trust in a man not schooled in physics. He is not an authority and not an expert on the matter.

I don't believe he ever claimed to be an expert on the matter, so that isn't relevant.

 

[Reece]

Of course there could be articles, but something as earth shattering as changing constants would have made headlines on all the science sites I have been perusing for years. I've seen nothing. There are some maybes, but nothing that is unambiguous. Therefore, that is why It is not a flawed position.
Ok you read a book. What is the title of the book?
You proofed this sentence before you typed it right?
,You put far too much trust in a man not schooled in physics. He is not an authority and not an expert on the matter.

I accept nothing as true until there are facts to back up the claim. That includes opinings of physicists and non-physicists alike whether physical constants have changed. No, I don't have to accept it as true for the sake of argument.

Andrew by all means find any studies that clearly indicate physical constants have changed.

* I copied this from the page Reese linked to in post 277
From Sheldrakes page I quote "But what if the constants really change? What if the underlying nature of nature changes?"
As you can see his presentation is a what if position. But like so many people that have a vested interest in proving to others their understanding is correct they completely ignore the if and argue their position is entirely factual. It is noting more than ruminations though

The thing is, I'm not necessarily attached to the idea that constants fluctuate, so I'm fully open to evidence that they don't. But neither Steve nor Dakota made mention of the harder to overcome problems I linked to, such as the twenty some odd year period when the gravity measurements varied overall from the period following to such a degree that mass delusion on the part of those doing the measuring would have to be posited to otherwise account for it. Or the additional law that was proposed to account for discrepancies. Or the thoughts of other physicists.

Instead, there was an attempt at discrediting Sheldrake by Steve, which might be fair enough if he came up with the numbers himself, but he didn't. Then there was (humorless) Sheldrake bashing by Dakota and almost no mention of the actual substance, except the last bit about light where he mentions something about "significant changes." Well, significant change isn't the issue anyway: fluctuation in so called constants is what's being suggested . . . not just big decline/incline, much less light being instantaneous (!) . . . rather what might be a wavelike rise and fall, possibly. At any rate, despite the ease with which we might think it is to show Sheldrake wrong judging from Dakota's (hardly funny) jabs, he did almost no "actual showing him to be wrong."

Lastly, I'd like to mention that Sheldrake simply offers good reason to think it *might* be happening . . . then goes on to suggest a rather simple experiment too verify or falsify it . . . God forbid . . .

 

[JCearley]

Lastly, I'd like to mention that Sheldrake simply offers good reason to think it *might* be happening . . . then goes on to suggest a rather simple experiment too verify or falsify it . . . God forbid . . .

I don't see why Sheldrake bashing is imperative. There's an oddly high amount of arguing over whether he's qualified to ask questions or not, when the only thing that matters is whether the question is valid or answered.

 

[wpb]

Here's the following analogy.

It's as if I'm a Christian, and I'm stating my Christian views are correct. Now, Christ somehow gets disproven. I state that then the fact that Christ has been disproven can be incorporated into my belief. So now I'm a Christian who doesn't believe Christ existed.

Next, God somehow gets disproven. I still consider myself a Christian, even thought I don't believe in Christ anymore. I now state that God does not exist, but that is still compatible with my belief system, since I am able to reincorporate those views into my belief system.

So now I am a Christian who does not believe in God, or in Christ.

Do you believe it is now fair to state that my Christian views have been correct for the 2000 years Christianity has been founded?

But you're subtracting. I think a better analogy would be this:

You believe in God. Sometime later, you discover Christ. Now you believe in God the Father and Christ the Son. Still later, you discover the Holy Spirit. Now you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Though they have evolved, your religious views have been essentially correct for thousands of years. :)

I do have a problem with people saying that materialism has more merit than other metaphysics because it has been correct for the 400 years that modern science has been around.

I don't think anyone really knows which (if any) current metaphysic is correct.

Pat

 

[Iyace]

Since Steve001 is apparently not able to post, he wants me to let this thread know that instead of promissory materialism, he meant science.

 

[soulatman]

Since Steve001 is apparently not able to post, he wants me to let this thread know that instead of promissory materialism, he meant science.

An unintended slip? I guess its not too bad, after all, aren't the two synonymous? (*being sarcastic)

 

[Andrew Paquette]

I am also curious about which book that is (mostly for the 'mainstream sources'.)



I don't believe he ever claimed to be an expert on the matter, so that isn't relevant.

A recently published book called "Science set Free." In it, Rupert Sheldrake has 58 references that show that these constants have changed. Some of the sources are the organizations that keep the records. You don't get closer to primary source material than that. The onus is on Steve001 to refute those references. If he doesn't feel like it, that's up to him, but his voice on the subject isn't welcome until he knows what he's talking about.

For those of you getting excited by the fact that this is a Sheldrake book, who want to shout "AHA! He's not mainstream!" I'm talking about his sources and they are mainstream.

 

[malf]

As heated as things have got, perhaps there's not that much difference between some of the posters arguing against each other. Common ground:

1. Consciousness is weird.
2. We don't fully understand it.
3. We are open to new evidence and discoveries.

3. Is the tricky one! What passes for evidence and is compelling for one person does not meet the standard for another. On top of this, when we have a "worldview", it has been well documented that we seek out data and evidence to support this position. Read through the last few pages of posts and one sees that pattern clearly. Consequently, these BvS debates follow a pattern until someone gets frustrated and moderated out for "skeptical nincompoopery".

However, what I see is a smaller ideological gap between, say, Iyace and Steve (both prepared to follow the data), than Iyace and some of the more "faith-informed" proponents/believers. It's odd where the battle lines are drawn, no?