Materialism as a religion

I'd be curious to hear Malf's response to this threshold question.

I feel like I sit somewhere on this continuum between Malf and those who feel confident/satisfied by the current "evidence" that physicalism/materialism is false.

I am unsatisfied with Malf's version of the creed.  I have no real rational basis to be unsatisfied with it.  Rather, I feel a strong need for there to be some grander meaning to "all this".  That said, I don't find Sheldrake's morphic field theories and research of dogs barking before their owners get home as compelling.

So, I'm sympathetic to Malf (and also to the more aggressive sceptics).

As I used to hope for when I was very young when watching the old 10 Commandment movies: "If only I'd been there to see the Red Sea part; I'd have been convinced by THAT!".

Just goes to show what has always been clear to the proponents, if not to the self-described skeptics: that we are all skeptics. People I agree with about some things seem to me to be bat-shit bonkers about other things (CTs and Politics especially). I'm hugely skeptical about ET visitations, abductions and communications too but a term like "proponent" seems to lump me in with all that too. (For the record, I'm more comfortable with those who believe that inter-dimensional contact is a possible explanation rather than beings in spaceships.)

As for Sheldrake, I think he's followed his instincts by insisting that the orthodox scientific view falls short and he's had a good stab at an alternative theory. I'm not qualified to say whether history will look back at him more kindly but I doubt that Dawkins or Krauss will find a glorious place in history either. I will say, about the dogs, that I have long suspected they know what I'm intending while I'm only thinking it, not doing anything - especially if it involved feeding or walking them. And, while waiting at a former girlfriend's house, I have often witnessed her dogs and cats move to the gate 10 or so minutes before her return - no matter what time she decided to come home. I have asked several dog owners who concur.

It’s the common atheist mantra that we’re all atheists, but atheists are atheists to one more god than most people. My skepticism is similar, which is why I’m both skeptical of the underlying assumption scientists make, Parapsychological or otherwise. Keep in mind that everyone’s metaphysic is based on one free miracle, even physicalism. Physicalism is not at all a complete metaphysic, and also requires a free miracle in its premise.

But then morality and meaning are ipso facto real tangible things.

Depends what you mean by "real" and "tangible". If you think that they are "existing" outside of the physical processes, that is your misunderstanding of the physicalist position.

Put it this way: a storm is caused by a combination of physical factors. The combination of those physical factors give rise to ephiphenomena like wind, which themselves can be independently measured and observed. What you’re saying then, isn’t internally consistent. You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff. The only way to keep it consistent is by saying meaning is objective and independently accessible.

The first step is to try and set aside notions of "epiphenomena" and "giving rise to". The second step is to be a bit more imaginative around the properties of the physical, and develop a broader view of what it might be capable.

Depends what you mean by "real" and "tangible".    If you think that they are "existing" outside of the physical processes, that is your misunderstanding of the physicalist position.




The first step is to try and set aside notions of "epiphenomena" and "giving rise to". The second step is to be a bit more imaginative around the properties of the physical, and develop a broader view of what it might be capable.

I don’t need to be more imaginative, considering in physicalism what is physical is thoroughly defined. It is that can be measured and observed. This is my point with physicalism. You actually need to contradict it to make it consistent, which is a bad metaphysic. I shouldn’t have to get creative with labeling things just so physicalism can be consistent and rational. The burden of proof is on the physicalist to prove that those intangible and immeasurable things are measurable and tangible. I shouldn’t have to start cleverly labeling things and give you more free miracles just to get your metaphysic to work.

I'm struggling with this too... I'm no philosopher, and I don't use any labels like 'materialism' etc... but it seems important, because what your saying isn't making sense to me. For instance, where does this come from... "You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff."? Is it some sort of philosophical position?

I’m referencing what malf’s revised creed said about morality and ethics.

I don’t need to be more imaginative, considering in physicalism what is physical is thoroughly defined. It is that can be measured and observed. This is my point with physicalism. You actually need to contradict it to make it consistent, which is a bad metaphysic. I shouldn’t have to get creative with labeling things just so physicalism can be consistent and rational. The burden of proof is on the physicalist to prove that those intangible and immeasurable things are measurable and tangible. I shouldn’t have to start cleverly labeling things and give you more free miracles just to get your metaphysic to work.

Take it or leave it. We appear to have reached the "monkey brain" issue again.

that they were subjective? but... I didn't get how Malfs sentence leads to your interpretation "You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff."? I don't understand why 'subjective' leads to that?

Because subjective doesn’t make sense in that context. Subjective in that context means ‘ based on a special combination of physical mechanisms, morality will arise based on that combinations properties ‘. That’s the natural conclusion from that argument. Morality and ethics would then need to be measurable, much like the higher order properties of molecular velocity ( wind ) is measured independent of molecularly measurement.