Philosophy Discussion Forums

Gee wrote:My biggest problem with this idea is "Where is the plug?". When people argue that computers are conscious, I always remind them that computers use electricity to activate. So with materialism, if these Lego's are bouncing and floating and doing all sorts of things, then where do they get the energy? Is there a big plug that plugs in the universe? Or how does materialism work?

I guess you see energy as synonymous with electricity, eh?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 2:15 pm In the literally materialist world that I attempted to partially describe in the third paragraph of the OP, I stated that the only interactions between objects would have to be perfectly elastic, instantaneous (i.e. impulsive) collisions.

In my view conservation is a theoretical convention (and "potential energy" is an extension of that theoretical convention), not something that we can really know is the case. "Perfectly elastic interactions" assume conservation of energy. Remember that I'm not a realist on physical laws, by the way.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 2:15 pm
In the literally materialist world that I attempted to partially describe in the third paragraph of the OP, I stated that the only interactions between objects would have to be perfectly elastic, instantaneous (i.e. impulsive) collisions. The reason I stated this was that this is the only way to preserve the idea that the only existent is matter and the properties of matter.

Properties do not belong to "matter" as such, but rather to the objects made of matter. The properties and behavior of objects is a function of their organization, rather than the atoms of which they are made. Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen behave differently than molecules of H2O.

Matter can be organized into three main classes: inanimate objects that behave passively to physical forces, living organisms that behave purposefully to survive, thrive, and reproduce, and intelligent species that can also behave deliberately, by reason and calculation.

So, we cannot find the properties of living organisms within the atoms of which they are made. We only find these properties in the organization of a life form.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 2:15 pm So, does this mean that you regard the notion of a force existing (being real) as compatible with literal materialism because you regard forces as inalienable properties of matter, just as other properties like their relative motion are?

Literal materialism only needs to mean that all objects are made of the same underlying material. Since that material behaves differently according to how it is organized, all properties are derived from the nature of the organization.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 6:37 pm
Properties do not belong to "matter" as such, but rather to the objects made of matter. The properties and behavior of objects is a function of their organization, rather than the atoms of which they are made. Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen behave differently than molecules of H2O.

I'd say that properties "belong" to matter, but that matter in particular dynamic relations with other matter amounts to different properties than an elementary particle has in relative isolation.

The term "belong" is misleading I think. There's not a distinction between matter and properties, as if matter is more basic and then it gains properties. Matter/properties are the same thing, or it's two different ways of looking at the same thing. But the two are inseparable. And dynamic relations of matter and properties that uniquely obtain with the dynamic relations are inseparable, too.

Gertie wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:07 pm Consciousness tho, isn't in any of these pictures. Isn't predicted by the 'rules' implied by these models. That's where materialism meets its match, for now at least.

Hear, hear.

The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑August 19th, 2020, 2:37 am

Gertie wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:07 pm Consciousness tho, isn't in any of these pictures. Isn't predicted by the 'rules' implied by these models. That's where materialism meets its match, for now at least.

Hear, hear.

The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

Mind is simply a subset of brain function.

Mind is what the brain creates. Where else is it supposed to come from?

Steve3007 wrote:...Any non-instantaneous collision between two objects requires the kinetic energy of those objects to be temporarily converted to potential energy during the collision process. There is a non-zero period of time during which their relative movement (their relative kinetic energy) reduces to zero and kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. In an instantaneous collision there isn't. So this is the only kind of interaction that literal materialism allows.

...and yet instantaneous/impulsive collisions (or any other instantaneous process) are abstract concepts. They don't exist in the real world for the same reason that dimensionless points don't exist in the real world. Therefore literal materialism, if it doesn't allow the real existence of fields and associated potential energy, appears to me to be self-contradictory.

Marvin_Edwards wrote:Properties do not belong to "matter" as such, but rather to the objects made of matter. The properties and behavior of objects is a function of their organization, rather than the atoms of which they are made. Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen behave differently than molecules of H2O.

Yes. This is what is meant when it is stated that materialism is the view that the only existents are matter and things that supervene on matter. That is how the concept of "supervention" is used. It roughly means that a relatively complex physical system, such as the H2O in your example, can be more than simply the sum of its parts while still not physically consisting of anything other than its parts. At least that's my understanding of supervention in the context of materialism and physicalism.

Angel Trismegistus wrote:The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

So you're an immaterialist idealist, like Berkeley? How's that going?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2020, 6:23 am

Angel Trismegistus wrote:The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

So you're an immaterialist idealist, like Berkeley? How's that going?

LOL.
He lost his mind!

Jklint wrote: ↑August 19th, 2020, 5:49 pm Mind is what the brain creates. Where else is it supposed to come from?

Yes, the mind is what the brain does. Like legs in motion creates walking or running, like water falling from the sky creates rain; the brain in action creates mind.
The mind is wholly dependant on the brain as is evident.

Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑August 19th, 2020, 2:37 am

Gertie wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:07 pm Consciousness tho, isn't in any of these pictures. Isn't predicted by the 'rules' implied by these models. That's where materialism meets its match, for now at least.

Hear, hear.

The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

Heh. That's a bit bold for me.

Two separate issues there really - all we can know directly for certain is our mental experience. But materialism might still be true.

Then there's the issue that even if material stuff exists, we still don't have a handle on how it could explain mental experience. There are speculations - for example mental experience might be a novel emergent property of complex material processes which we find in brains. Or the monist notion that mental experience is physical brain processes.

But then again we might be living in a panpsychic world, or a dualist world, or an Idealist world, or something we haven't thought of. And nobody knows how to test such hypotheses.

Gertie wrote: ↑August 20th, 2020, 6:37 am

Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑August 19th, 2020, 2:37 am
Hear, hear.

The mind is not in the brain -- the brain is in the mind. Along with everything else in the so-called material world.

Heh. That's a bit bold for me.

Two separate issues there really - all we can know directly for certain is our mental experience. But materialism might still be true.

Then there's the issue that even if material stuff exists, we still don't have a handle on how it could explain mental experience. There are speculations - for example mental experience might be a novel emergent property of complex material processes which we find in brains. Or the monist notion that mental experience is physical brain processes.

But then again we might be living in a panpsychic world, or a dualist world, or an Idealist world, or something we haven't thought of. And nobody knows how to test such hypotheses.

Nothing is going to "explain" the world of experience, ever. All we can do is describe it and show where it comes from. Why would you think otherwise?
Since we can only have our world of experience to understand our world of experience we are the photographed, the photo and the photographer. Its an endless cycle that it is impossible to break out of.
All we know right now, is that damage and changes to the brain make equal and compensurate changes to aspect of the mind, indivisibly. Physical forces, drugs traumas, all have their effects.
Describing these things in detail has given us amazing insights into the working of the brain/mind.
But like all science, it is fundementally descriptive.
Dualism is an outdated and empty theory, based on ancient notions of soul. It's not helpful.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2020, 6:06 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:Properties do not belong to "matter" as such, but rather to the objects made of matter. The properties and behavior of objects is a function of their organization, rather than the atoms of which they are made. Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen behave differently than molecules of H2O.

Yes. This is what is meant when it is stated that materialism is the view that the only existents are matter and things that supervene on matter. That is how the concept of "supervention" is used. It roughly means that a relatively complex physical system, such as the H2O in your example, can be more than simply the sum of its parts while still not physically consisting of anything other than its parts. At least that's my understanding of supervention in the context of materialism and physicalism.

I think "emergence" is the concept you mean. New properties emerge in the organization that cannot be found in the parts.

Supervention seems, from what I've read, to be a rather technical term that applies to very specific circumstances. So, I avoid using the phrase "supervenes on", because those circumstances are too complex for my small mind.