Materialism is not correct
Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct.
Comments (112)
If consciousness is causally efficacious then epiphenomenalism isn't correct. Materialism doesn't depend on epiphenomenalism. In fact, materialism probably excludes epiphenomenalism. Materialists are most likely to be behaviorists, identity theorists, functionalists, or eliminativists.
No. Materialism leads to epiphenomalism. Consider physical process as vertical. Consciousness is the result of physical process but vertical, down-up. Consciousness cannot affect the state of affair, up-down, since the state of affair has already been defined by physical process. Therefore we are dealing with epiphenomena.
Can we agree on definition of materialism given in OP?
The only way around this problem for materialists is by declaring consciousness some sort of illusion, without providing any theory of how or why fundamental quanta would create such illusions. Of course, materialists could even go so far as denying there is any such thing as consciousness but that dog won't hunt.
Why? Can't they say that consciousness is real, just physical in nature? Besides, the above seems rather self-defeating. Are illusions physical, or are they also an illusion ... which is also an illusion ... etc.?
Of course they can, simply by redefining the meaning of physical. But at this point, materialism loses all meaning. Instead what we have is a philosophy which I embrace where consciousness is just the fundamental basis for everything and matter is a condensed/deadened form of consciousness. That would be nice if materialists went that route.
Most people think of physical as something that can be causal in some manner. I would be delighted if biologists (specifically) admitted that consciousness causes things - such as evolution. That would be wonderful.
And the materialist who equates consciousness with brain states (for example) will say that consciousness (brain states) causes things. So there's no redefinition.
Well now you are calling "states" physical. It's rather amusing to observe the contortions. Always trying to hide consciousness somewhere without admitting to it.
I realize this. So now a state is physical.
I have no problem with this. Everything is physical including consciousness and consciousness can cause, create, and evolve. Fine. Quantum states are consciousness. Beautiful. This is what I believe.
And it keeps going. The big bugaboo with materialism. That darn mind.
What are you talking about?
The brain is consciousness. You just said it. Fine. So is the gut which is also transmitting signals to the brain. I like it.
A state isn't physical. Ok. So consciousness isn't physical. Back to the illusion thing.
Materialist contortionism.
I have no idea what you mean.
There's a bunch of physical matter in a particular state, i.e. arranged in a particular way and behaving a certain way. That's perfectly consistent with materialism.
Personally I'm not a 'materialist'. But the article you quote can be easily accommodated within a materialist/physicalist account. Either 'conscious awareness' is itself physiologically based, or it supervenes on the physical here.
Gosh, this is like a slippery eel.
WHAT IS MIND?
Please take a deep breath and instead of taking all sides to all things, figure out what you are trying to say and then say it.
Under materialism, consciousness cannot have any causal effect on the state of affair since the state of affair is defined in term of physical process. This leads to epiphenomena. What I am arguing is that consciousness has a causal effect on state of affair therefore materialism, given the definition in OP, is not correct.
I know what I'm trying to say. The materialist may argue that consciousness is identical to a particular arrangement and behaviour of matter (e.g. the brain and its activity). You seem to have some issue with the term "state" and are saying something about states not being physical. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm asking you to clarify it.
We have a bit of a problem if trying to explain the theory of how consciousness materializes out of a "state" that is continuously changing persistent". Magic? It just happens? The "Thermodynamic Imperative". Or is it just dogma?
The study referenced in the article doesn't actually show that. It shows that we're better at learning when we're conscious, not that we're better at learning because of consciousness.
It might be that consciousness emerges from brain state A but doesn't emerge from brain state B and that brain state A helps with learning. This explains the findings of the study without inferring that consciousness plays a causal role.
This doesn't follow. Under materialism it can be that consciousness has a causal effect because consciousness is a physical process. Your starting assumption – that consciousness isn't a physical process – is anti-materialist.
The materialist won't say that consciousness "materialises" out of a state. They will say that consciousness is that state. The distinction between "consciousness" and "organic matter with electrical impulses" is a false one.
If consciousness is physical then it is causal. It can create brain waves.
The materialist might say that consciousness is those brain waves.
Really? Fine. Consciousness is physical and causal. That is what the Daoist say. Consciousness causes the brain waves. You have unified mind and consciousness under materialism. They are one and the same. I'm with you.
However, I think you may find materialists quite in flurry over this.
I'm just saying that the present-day 'materialist' or physicalist argument is more sophisticated than this. Their argument is that there is a set of explanations that use 'mental' language, as yours does, and that this is a rational set of explanations, but that nevertheless there is ultimately an underlying physical explanation, but without a one-to-one correspondence between the 'mental' event and the 'physical' event. Instead the one supervenes on the other. That's their argument. As I say, I don't agree with it, but in my view you need a better argument than the one you've come up with so far to deny supervenience.
I don't know anything about Daoism, so I can't really comment. But at least with the monisms I'm familiar with there's an alleged difference between saying "all is material" and saying "all is immaterial". Whereas the materialist will say "consciousness is brain waves and brain waves are material, and so therefore consciousness is material", the immaterialist will say "brain waves are consciousness and consciousness is immaterial, and so therefore brain waves are immaterial".
Simply saying that consciousness and brain waves are identical is only half the picture, and the other half may be where the materialist and the Daoist disagree.
No. This is the full picture and the word gymnastics are irrelevant.
If they are identical (they are) then they are identical. The rest is materialist contortionism.
Materialism is not as you understand it or would like to understand it.
My advice is don't try to understand it because it is nonsense and cannot be understood.
As opposed to Daoism, which is clear and reasonable?
Absolutely. Daoism is based upon observation by people who are attempting to understand nature and life as it is being experienced, unlike materialism which is goal-oriented. Unbelievable there are still apostles of materialism despite the 100 year history of quantum mechanics. Most people in college are still taught the antiquated 17th century view of physics just to keep materialism alive. Pretty pathetic.
Yes, it is exactly the same only minor contortionist tweaks like "selfish genes" and "Thermodynamic Imperative". There is no such thing as "material" for 100 years. Materialism doesn't exist (as the Daoists observed).
But academia keeps it alive.
If consciousness is the result certain potential processes of matter which occurs only when matter is constructed in a certain manner this suggests a form of panpsychism. This is the only coherent answer I have found and to believe otherwise I think is to believe in some sort of magic.
So while screw, chairs, and rocks are not aware, virus, amoebas, plants and man display spontaneous movements demonstrating an awareness which these other items do not share.
The experiment you referred to is interesting, but what I think it is pointing out is that perception is a durational process whereby what is sensed must be processed prior to our being conscious of what is perceived. This process is estimated to take between 200 & 500 milliseconds, and the experiment only put the arrow up for 33 milliseconds, but if our sensory process starts processing, then it makes sense that this would have an effect when the image was reintroduced for a longer duration.
Oh bullshit man. The current view of the nature of the universe, even just from the standpoint of physics, has radically changed since the 17th century. Few are suggesting we live in a Newtonian universe anymore. Also, "materialism doesn't exist" seems like a really silly sentence. Possibly, materialism is false, but that aside, no one is advocating for the same view of the universe. You are just being thick headed for reasons I cannot grasp.
Could you learn the content of a book while unconsciously reading it and your consciousness is busy with somewhere else, listening to music for example?
Quoting Michael
So we have a physical process which cause a brain state which is a physical process, lets call it mental process, yet the mental process affects the physical process? So you won't see that my particles obey laws of nature if you look at them?
That is the best materialist argument that I know. Do you have or know a better argument than that? Any reference?
The brain state is the physical process. That brain state causally influences the world, most notably the central nervous system. All of this can be seen.
I can buy that but the question is whether consciousness has any causal effect at all. We know it by fact that we learn things when we pay attention to them. This means that consciousness has a causal effect on physical process which created it!
Quoting John Searle :D
What I think is important here is that my thought sets off a chain of physical processes that end up with my arm going up.
What a mess it educational system is in. Like I said, they are still teaching 17thb century physics. You are evidence of it.
There is zero evidence or any kind of theory of how so-called material processes (which as of 100 years ago no longer exist), creates consciousness. One can easily say, with equal validity that consciousness causes processes that materialize as the brain - most especially if they are considered equivalent (they are).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Ter
Yep, materialism is flat out dead. So be it. But still it is taught as if it isn't. Lots of money to be made trading people to believe they are just computer bots without intelligence.
Jaegwon Kim is the man. 'Philosophy of Mind'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaegwon_Kim
Do causes even exist?
If causes do not exist, does any question about materialism even matter?
What does it mean to be a physical process as opposed to a non-physical process?
Computers are excellent analogies of the mind-body relationship. What the software on the computer does is dependent on input (bottom-up). The computer then produces output based on the interaction of the software and the input (top-down).
The computer can be designed to learn - to change it's programming on the fly based on new input, which can be it's own output.
The physical vs. non-physical distinction is the illusion. When consciousness is caused and causes, in a relationship with the world, talking about different substances is ridiculous. It is neither physical nor non-physical. It is all information.
That is the process which does the job. The brain state is an simple index which we use to differentiate different state from each other. Are you suggesting that brain state is consciousness?
Information is passive, inactive.
Consciousness is active. It creates. It makes choices by effect of will. It moves in a direction. Another aspect of consciousness is memory (information) that it influences this willful, creative drive.
Any model of consciousness has in one form or another both memory (information) and impulse (will applied in a specific direction), whether or not it is explicit it hidden in some other concept.
I'm saying that that is what some materialists will claim. See The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. Contrary to your repeated claims, materialism doesn't entail epiphenomenalism.
What is missing in his argument is that how a thought is created and can have a causal effect.
Yes, cause exists. It explains how a piece of matter affects another piece.
Thanks for the article.
I don't know anything like non-physical process.
This article had epiphenomenalism written all over it and then punts on the question by simply referencing a myriad of opinions on the subject. It's easy to hide nothingness in spaghetti as this article evidences. Materialism in any guise still says nothing about the nature of consciousness other than "heck it just happens - persistently, again, and again, and again. The Greatest Miracle of All.
If someone posits that Mind-Body are identical (they are) then they are. Neither holds a superior position in such an ontology. In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the sole origin of all communication. On the contrary, all evidence is quite the opposite. This idea that all actions are governed by the brain is not only antiquated, it is totally manufactured.
I'm not sure how you read that into it.
But I'm really not sure what to else to say but that identity theory isn't epiphenomenalism, and is something that materialists do accept (among other theories that also aren't epiphenomenalism). So to argue against materialism by arguing against epiphenomenalism just doesn't make sense.
It is the author's choice of words and description of events. Here either clearly suggesting epiphenomenalism and has zero idea how to support it - so he rambles. Materialists have to use obfuscation, otherwise they have to answer how and why? How does this persistence of mind come about and persist??? NO THEORY at all.
However, as I indicated, if anyone takes the position that Mind and Body are identical, well I guess that is it. Mind is causal and identical to the Body (neither are material or physical in the normal sense of the word).
You mean "how does this persistence of certain brain processes come about"? What do you mean by that, and why wouldn't the materialist be able to explain it?
As I said earlier, materialists just pretend that such a thing doesn't exist, they (their Minds) are so involved in denying it.
Your criticism doesn't make any sense. The identity theorist argues that consciousness is identical to certain brain processes, and you respond by saying that they can't make sense of consciousness as something to be distinguished from brain processes? Well, obviously. Their claim is that there isn't a distinction. To describe certain brain processes is to describe consciousness (and vice versa).
The article was a rambling mess but he clearly takes the position of mind somehow, someway springing from the brain. He doesn't even define "the brain". You know the "brain" is spread out throughout the body, right?
If the Mind-Body are identical, then that's that. Mind, brain, brain waves, neurons, cells, etc. are identical. Materialism vanishes since there is no longer an opposite. Some may call this monism.
There are different kinds of monisms, materialism being one.
But there are several objections to identity theory (quoted from Mind: A Brief Introduction by John R. Searle):
"There were a number of objections to the identity theory. I find it useful to distinguish between the technical objections and the common-sense objections. The first technical objection was that the theory seemed to violate a principle of logic called “Leibnitz’s Law.”11 The law says that if any two things are identical, then they must have all their properties in common. So if you could show that mental states had properties that could not be attributed to brain states, and brain states had properties that could not be attributed to mental states, it looks like you would refute the identity theory. And it did not seem difficult to provide such examples. So I can say, for example, that the brain state that corresponds to my thought that it is raining is 3 cm inside my left ear; but, according to the objectors, it does not make any sense to say that my thought that it is raining is 3 cm inside my left ear. Furthermore, even for conscious states that have a location, such as pain, the pain may be in my toe, but the brain state that corresponds to that pain is not in my toe, but in my brain. So the properties of the brain state are not the same as the properties of the mental state. Therefore, physicalism is false."
So you say. But given that there is a rich history of the competing monisms of materialism, idealism and neutral monism, I'm going to need more than just a few sentences to convince me to abandon these traditional distinctions.
Besides, what you're saying isn't quite right. The materialist will claim that mind is matter, not that (all) matter is mind. There is non-mind matter, too. The mind is just one type of material thing.
Well, it's your philosophy. Mind and Body are identical. You've chosen.
Parenthetically, in choosing, you've also adopted a viewpoint that the Mind had Choices.
It's not my philosophy. It's materialist philosophy.
Do you agree with the definition of materialism in OP? If yes, there is no room left for consciousness since physical process determine everything. We also know that identity theory is not right therefore consciousness and physical process cannot be same.
Ok. Materialism says that Mind directs the body and makes Choices. I can live with that.
Identity theory might not be right, but it doesn't then follow that materialists cannot be identity theorists. If materialism allows for identity theory (i.e. they're consistent positions) then you can't disprove materialism by disproving epiphenomenalism.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
You have unilaterally redefined materialism as some sort of Identity Theory, in such a way that obliterates the differences between material and non-material ( no problem with this, quantum theory did the same 100 years ago), yet still permits you to call it materialism. Sort of having your cake and eat it.
For me, I don't care about this sort of word gymnastics. You have agreed that Mind and Body are identical. That defines your philosophy.
No I haven't. I've said that materialists can be identity theorists. Contrary to bahman's repeated claims, materialism doesn't require epiphenomenalism. In fact, some (most?) materialists might say that materialism precludes epiphenomenalism, given that epiphenomenalism posits something like qualia which are non-material.
Quoting Rich
No I haven't. I've said that, according to identity theorists, which presumably is one of the major theories of mind accepted by materialists, mental activity is identical to certain physical activity, e.g. brain activity.
I haven't said that I'm an identity theorist (or a materialist).
Also, as you may have missed something I edited into an earlier comment: the materialist will claim that mind is matter, not that (all) matter is mind. There is non-mind matter, too. The mind is just one type of material thing.
Fine they can be anyone they want. I guess for some people the word is most important. "I am a materialist!!!" quietly .... but I believe that mind and material are identical.
People run their lives as they choose.
Quoting Michael
No, according to you Mind and Brain (matter) are identical. In other words, brain is mind.
Except that's not what it is at all, as I've said above. They might believe that the mind is identical to some material thing (e.g. brain activity), but that's not the same as believing that "mind and material are identical". Consciousness is just one type of matter, and there's a whole lot of matter in the world that has nothing to do with the mind.
Yes, but the materialist will argue that there's more to the world than just the brain. There is matter in the world that has nothing to do with consciousness.
Compare with another monist - the subjective idealist - who argues that everything in the world has something to do with consciousness.
This is why it is false to say that materialism "vanishes" if monism is the case. There are different kinds of monism, materialism being one.
Quoting Michael
Well then, you have to come up with a Theory on how some matter is identical to Mind and others aren't and how it persists. But again, no matter. You have already said that you believe (I really dislike speaking for this ambiguous they), that some matter and mind are identical. Well, that is a mouthful for materialism.
When the human body moves, it is the Mind that is moving it. What's more, the Mind is making choices. Sounds fine to me. I would just be reticent to claim that materialists believe this.
Why? Does the materialist need to explain how some matter is identical to brain activity and others aren't, and how it persists? Does he need to explain how some matter is identical to a tree and others aren't, and how it persists?
Some material things are cats. Some material things are rain. Some material things are a falling rock. Some material things are consciousness.
Or, consciousness and material is identical. That is what you claim. How does that sound with you? That's my belief.
Quoting Michael
Yes, otherwise it's magic, or more precisely a religious Miracle.
That's not what I claim. It's not what the materialist claims either. There is matter that isn't consciousness.
What I've said is that, according to the identity theorist, the mind just is certain kinds of brain activity. But, again, there is much more to the world that just brain activity.
It's magic that trees aren't chairs, or that cats aren't dogs, or that brain activity isn't a fusion reactor?
My god you have a lot of patience. I would have smashed my laptop in frustration by now. I can't add anything you haven't already said, just wanted to voice my admiration for your calm tenacity.
Thanks. As a moderator it's my duty to remain calm. ;)
Exactly, the whole theory if materialism rests on a magical Miracle of the greatest sort. In a nutshell, "it all just happens".
Meaningless philosophy with the sole goal being to claim everything is material. Totally laughable.
If 5 pages of Michael's careful and patient explanation of the materialist position hasn't disabused you of your preconceptions, I'm not about to start another 5 pages of exposition.
Out of courtesy, I will happily answer your question. I think that the body is directed by the body.
Let me put it this way. The Mind is Life is the Body. I'm cool with this "materialistic" philosophy.
Quoting Pseudonym
That's nice. The Mind is the Body - according the New Age Materialism. Ask Michael.
I think the OP's article conflates consciousness with awareness as it related to perception, at least with respect to the discussion of the hard problem of consciousness. The feely-ness of the world differs from the amount of concentration a learning system needs to learn, or whether or not they are aware of a perception or if that perception is subliminal.
Sorry if that's off topic. I reflexively read "consciousness" in terms of the hard problem.
I'd say the hard problem is posited on the basis that consciousness exists, 1, and the standard physicalisms are unable to account for the fact. By standard I just mean the one's you list -- behavior, identity, functional, or eliminative.
There are people who lay claim to non-reductive physicalism, but I don't think the metaphysical stance is quite as clear as the other four. It's usually kind of idiosyncratic and unworked out -- sort of like saying, hey, consciousness exists, and it is physical, because. . . it's convenient that way? That is, the "because..." doesn't seem to work out what physicalism means like the other four have.
There's no problem of explaining how physical processes "give rise" to something else if you reject the premise that there is something else. There is just the information processing, and this can be explained by everyday neuroscience.
You'll find this kind of thinking in its embryonic form in James and Dewey, and in Husserl.
It's been developed in many directions by enactive embodied cognitive scientists and philosophers who are incorporating the ideas of phenomenology. I particularly recommend the work of Shaun Gallagher. Also Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson.
Of course not. The best explanation I ever heard by ba neuro-scientist was that "it was all very complicated". Which is a bit more than what you are saying, which is complete denial (I suggested this stance in my original reply - illusion and/or denial).
But we drift. I thought you presented materialism as representing Mind and Brain (undefined) Matter as identical. What happened to that?
I don't believe in materialism. In fact I used exclamation to show the irony in the statement. How consciousness which arises from material process can possibly affect the material process which created the consciousness. I don't believe in panpaychism too. I don't think a collective experience can have causal effect. There should be at least a mind.
Quoting Joshs
Thanks for the references.
A journal article I once read concerning the same topics as this thread--physicalism and epiphenomenalism--pointed out that we do not observe causation, we only observe relationships.
I have brought up before here the strong case made by even other sources against the existence of causes, causation, etc.
We separate two events in our minds and we use induction to conclude that one caused the other. But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening.
Again, if causes, causation do not exist, why does materialism matter?
During my everyday experience, I find myself feeling that I want to move my hand in a particular manner and then feeling my hand move in that manner. My mind is causing my hand to move.
Seems awful like experience things causing other things all the time. Sometimes I'm wrong about what's causing what, and confuse correlation for causation.
Me either. The same goes for "physical" processes. I asked what does it mean to be physical or non-physical.
To me physical is made of stuff and has form, such as chair. I cannot comprehend non-physical thing such as mind.
It is perceived and sensed as such. Under analysis, as we peer deeper, it gradually becomes more-and more non-physical, quantitized. There is no separation or solidity.
Quoting bahman
Your mind may be different from mine, but I have dreams all the time as well as other images.
There is really no difference between the two. They are ultimately all wave forms. It is what we feel that is different. Our minds (consciousness) feel.
Could you please provide the reference?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Yes, that is true. We can never observe causation. The only thing that we can observe is correlation between events. I am however not sure that we can prove that causation does not exist therefore materialism might be relevant.
Quantized things are physical and have forms.
Quoting Rich
What do you mean?
What do you mean by "stuff"? The mind is made of stuff too and has form. How else can you even talk about it and how it changes?
How do you even know that a chair is made up of different "stuff" than the mind? Is it the fact that you can touch the chair and feel it's solidity? "Feeling the chair" is one of the forms the mind takes, as well as "sitting in the chair". Asking if you can feel a mind is like asking if the chair can sit on itself.