Materialism is logically impossible
Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and behavior of matter can be described by laws of nature. In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state of a system, S' is final state of the system and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C simply contains the expectation of what S' should be based on what is observed, S, and decision which is made. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S). There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen and the final state of system, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything depending on decision.
Comments (39)
The Laws of Nature act in anyway they wish and can do anything it wishes. It can create Consciousness and make Consciousness act in any manner that it does. There is no questioning the power of the mystical Laws of Nature (an entirely invented abstract concept) that is creating the illusion of Consciousness.
Materialism is a rather interesting religion that does not succomb to either logic or commonsense.
Interesting religion but impossible, unless you have a God who knows everything.
The Laws of Nature are everywhere, know everything, and are all powerful.
Really? How so? You can start by enumerating all of the Laws of Nature that are involved with this explanation. Then you can explain how they formed conscious experience which is that what reacts to stimuli.
I had a really hard time following your post, but this is one point I could understand. In what universe is there a "fantastic" correlation between what we expect and what happens?
This is a physicist interpretation of reality which seems coherent if there was no consciousness. We are dealing with a improbable situation when there is conscious decision.
In our universe. Laws of nature dictate that at the moment my hand should move and type specific word for example. I am consciously aware of situation and can decide too about whether I should move my hand or not. There is always a fork when a decision is involved, so called options. I choose the branch which I wish. So the chance that laws of nature exactly dictates what I decide is 50% if there are only two options. People makes decisions at each instant. This makes the chance even lower.
But you're not consciously aware of what all goes into making your decision.
No physicist claims that physics provides such an explanation as you claim, nor is the term Laws of Nature used in physics. So we are back to you having to enumerate the Laws of Nature that explain how all matter evolves and reacts to stimuli?
The options and the conscious decision are all which exist in the moment of decision.
The physicist call it standard model in which all equations related to particles movement can be derived from.
I take it you're no fan of Freud. The brain and body also exist in the moment of decision.
I would like to know of any other system of explanation that doesn't do the same thing: to claim that everything is composed of some thing, or is made of some primary substance and that the behavior of that substance can be described by the laws of reality, or nature, god, or whatever you want to call everything.
It seems to me that every anti-materialist on these forums is doing the same thing the materialist is doing: trying to claim that everything is composed of one substance and then going on to explain how those things behave according to some rule or law.
So what is it that you really have against "materialism"?
The only equations defining particle movements are the QM equations. They relate only to the evolutionary path of electrons and are probabilistic (indeterminate events). Now how does this explain how all matter evolves in all manner? They don't even explain electrons! They just predict!!
That it claims to be scientific where it is simply just another faith. It has its dogma (everything is material), its God (the Laws of Nature), and its Genesis (the Big Bang). All in all, it's a manufactured religion no different from any other.
That is true. Brain and body however are material and obey laws of nature. The problem according to OP is consciousness.
Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
The only equations defining particle movements are the QM equations. They relate only to the evolutionary path of electrons and are probabilistic (indeterminate events). Now how does this explain how all matter evolves in all manner? They don't even explain electrons! They just predict!![
/quote]
That is correct. You have a Schrodinger equation which gives the evolution of the probability function. The probability function tells you where body is. So you have something which is moving based on laws of nature, body.
That is correct. You have a Schrodinger equation which gives the evolution of the probability function. The probability function tells you where body is. So you have something which is moving based on laws of nature, body.
First, it tells you where the electron (not necessarily a particle) may probably be. Nothing is definite until it is observed.
Second,predicting the probability where an electron may be is a far, far, far .... cry from explaining the evolution of everything in the universe. Determinists have to really get a hold on their proclamations. It's strange how they make this gigantic leap so easily and pretend it is some sort of scientific fact.
You are being kind. I would describe it as deliberate obfuscation.
Well, the electron is where that is more probable. The probability drop down exponentially far from body. So body in macroscopic level is where it is and quantum effect has no role to plays. It is just insignificant.
Quoting Rich
Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation.
No.
You are trying to hard to make a case for determinism/materialism. Insignificant > 0. Electrons aren't even particles.
Quoting bahman
Now it's getting ridiculous. Zero support for this statement. But it's part for the course. If one is willing to make up a myth like Determinism why not call the Schrodinger equation deterministic. It's all an illusion anyway.
Nice talking to you.
Did you read my reply? I explain the problem with the OP there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
You're confusing religion with science. If you really don't know the difference, then there's no point in continuing a conversation with you.
You can't read. I said Determinism/Materialism is a religion. It is a story/myth created by atheists so they can have their fated lives to believe in, which makes it a dead on sibling of Calvinism. That there is zero support for either Determinism or Materialism is if no matter to true believers. A good story is hard to beat. It is a great story of how bouncing particles created everything. However, for me, I think Geek mythology is far more enjoyable.
For someone so offended by those who claim something is simply 'true' when it is, in fact, a belief. You seem remarkably certain that consciousness is a real thing and not, for example, an illusion, as neurologists like Bruce Hood believe.
Far from your overstated claim that materialism is impossible, all you're saying is that materialism is incompatible with a dualistic understanding of free-will. Well, no ever said it wasn't.
I mean the chance of finding an electron is bigger in a place that the wave function is bigger.
Quoting Rich
Well, Schrodinger equation has two parts, left and right sides. On the left we simply have the derivative of wave function. On the right we have Hamiltonian which act as operator on wave function. Given wave function at specific moment we can know the right hand side. This means that left hand side is known. The left hand side is derivative of wave function which means that one can obtain the wave function in later time given the wave function in earlier time.
The problem that I am trying to highlight in OP is exactly due to existence of material and consciousness.
We know that decision and consciousness are real. My hand goes where I decide and I am aware of that.
Quoting Pseudonym
No, I am saying that materialism is impossible if consciousness and free will are emergent properties within materialism.
How do we 'know' this? When we see a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat it seems as if it has appeared from nowhere but that's definitely not the case. Just because it seems to us that we decide where our hand goes, doesn't mean we do.
Brain scans have consistently been able to identify the neural instructions to move a hand as much as ten seconds before the subject actually 'intends' to do so.
The monist argument is that free-will and consciousness are 'illlusions' that emerge from materialism, so your issue is simply that you hold to a dualist philosophy, and of course that is incompatible with materialism which is a monist philosophy.
That is the issue that I am stressing too. Have you ever observe that you decide that you move your hand somewhere and your hand moves elsewhere. Our bodies always follow our decision. This is an empirical evidence very similar to empirical evidence that scientists use.
Quoting Pseudonym
I am aware of those studies. This however question the use of consciousness and conscious decision. Why should evolution grant consciousness if there is no use of it?
Quoting Pseudonym
I can buy the claim that consciousness and free will are illusion. I am however puzzled by the fact that why there is such a great correlation between what we expect to happen and what happens.
Its quite simple, our bodies do not follow our conscious decision. Our bodies follow the subconscious instruction, then we construct an illusion that we consciously instructed it. There's no mystery about the correlation. It correlates perfectly because the brain is making it up ten seconds after the event. It has all the benefit of hindsight to get the feeling exactly right.
Why should evolution grant consciousness if there is no use of it? This is subject of another thread that I am going to open.
K
Everything we experience we experience consciously. Man thinking a world independent of his thought is a performative contradiction. If man has a physical relationship with the world then the laws circumscribing that relationship ought to be logical, but it does not work that way because there is no reason to believe that the structure of thought mirrors the structure of reality,
Yet the laws we derive from the world are amazingly accurate and useful. I think man's relationship with the world is based on probabilities, and the laws that men abstract from the manifest, idealize what is experienced. Laws that can the formally manipulated and reapplied/utilized in the world. If it works then fine, if not then we revise, and reapply.
Transcendental realism looks at our pragmatic experiences including their history and their advances and it tries to determine what they must presuppose in order to be as we experience them. This is an epistemic move, and not an ontological one (the world as it is in itself is unknowable),TR thereby proposes to avoid the paradox (maybe).