Materialism

[Phage]

Materialism to me seems the only tenable position. Why?

1) Materialism is parsimonous given what we know in science.

2) Idealism cannot explain why we have different ideas,why things change,where the "mind"comes from etc. If things only exist because they are percieved;where did the perciever come from?

This is easily explained by materialism via ignorance of what is real(impossible in idealism) and by the blind nature of causality in materialism. However in idealism causality is guided and one can literally be ignorant of nothing that exists, creating a demand for further explanation.

3) Idealism is absurd in that all that exists is supposed to be ideas and perceptions; but then what is doing all the "thinking" and "observing"? The mind is obviously not thought of or observed so something must exist besides thoughts and perceptions alone. An observer must exist and this replaces the idealism with an even less coherent dualism. Monist materialism is less superfluous then dualism. in short, if things only exist because I percieve them, who is percieving me?

4) Idealists cannot explain how any given human can be ignorant of anything or unable to do certain acts given the mind is THE creator and controller of all things real. Many try to get out of this by presupposing other minds...but these minds cannot be percieved/thought all the time. This negates the original argument of thoughts being all we know and hence all we can say exists.

5) The phenomenon of negating beliefs, idealists cannot deal with this. Since thinking something makes it real, any nonidealist thoughts would have to be real.

6) What is the actual substance of idealist "entities" when percieved made of? How do we percieve the substance? We can for example make certain statements concerning the structue and nature of matter with different theories. Idealism however does not allow for this, as such things will only exist as "perception" requiring itself an underlying substance.

7) How do we percieve idealism or justify the belief in things like atoms?

By what mechanism(or group thereof) does this all operate? I cannot see these mechanisms that makes idealism work, so does that mean they do not exist?

8) With idealism it is difficult to explain why the same mental substance manifests itself in radically different ways(sight vs sound vs touch) via idealist mechanism of the mind. Why are we in fact limited to these senses and not others? Materialism though gives fairly simple and straight forward answers by the fact that the mind didn't create its own sensations. We have different organs, developed through blind causality, that transmit different aspects of the enviroment to us.

9) A pluralist/dualist position is more superfluous then a monist one, whether idealist or materialist. Even if a monist explanation is possible it is more reasonable to adhere to, even if a pluralist position is just as possible.

10) Pluralists cannot state how it is two or more radical substances interact....making their theories somewhat incoherent.

11) Such pluralist interaction would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

12) Lastly materialism is less superfluous in the face of an external world then idealism. As idealism to establish an external world must posit third, very superfluous entities/super-minds like God. That is positing the substance for things seen and a special unseen force to control it. Which in a sense negates many original idealist arguments whereas materialism only has substance to compose seen things.

All these points prove materialism to be true beyond a reasonable doubt via process of elmination.

[quoudam72]

Materialism is the most simplistic explanation of reality: the belief that all that exists is the physical; there are no higher realities; no psychic or spiritual truths independent of the physical world. What a boring concept of the universe all we have to look forward to is each other. I am bored already. :)

[Acriku]

Well, this is why I am a materialist, because it's all that is there. People seem to often confuse it with being greedy and lusty, without morality; but I try to educate them on the subject when confronted with it.

Who says it has to be boring Quondam? Life is certainly wonderful and full of things that are exciting to learn about on this world and beyond the atmosphere. It is what you make of it, I guess.

[quoudam72]

Materialist are so boring (not you in particular Acriku-), what is your explaination for such psychological phenomena as thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions, and sensory experiences.

[Mahdi]

I personally am a dualist, but there is no philosopher in the world who will say that Idealism is a ridiculous position. Berkely's arguements for it are irrefutable. Russell's arguement against him is the best there has ever been: There are simplier explanations.

[Phage]

Quondam:

Materialist are so boring (not you in particular Acriku-), what is your explaination for such psychological phenomena as thoughts, beliefs, desires, intentions, and sensory experiences.

The same as my explanation for circulation, breathing, and digestion:physical processes.

This line of argument seems very similiar to that of 19th century vitalists and seems to be an appeal to ignorance i.e. a spirituality in the gaps type argument.

Materialism is the most simplistic explanation of reality: the belief that all that exists is the physical; there are no higher realities; no psychic or spiritual truths independent of the physical world. What a boring concept of the universe all we have to look forward to is each other.

Well I'll grant it's a simple explanation, but that's its strength. Other theories are overly complex and thus cut down by Occam's Razor.

Simplistic, meaning I have neglected certain complexities, is a different charge altogether. It means I've neglected many complexities, however I have yet to be informed on what these complexities may be.

Mahdi:

I personally am a dualist, but there is no philosopher in the world who will say that Idealism is a ridiculous position. Berkely's arguements for it are irrefutable.

Well an argument's being irrefutable in a sense does not make it reasonable. I could argue, for example, that a monster lives in my closet, and when other people come by he warps to another galaxy. And nobody could refute me, but that doesn't make my claim reasonable.

However I say, refuted in a sense because it is just that. Berkley's argument is only irrefutable if we do not take into account the idea that objectivism is considered by many, including me, to be self-evident. Making Berkley's claims fundamentally absurd hence refuted at the fundamental level.

Furthermore, Berkley's claims are somewhat incoherent, as they open up unresolved problems I went over in my opening post.

Likewise Berkley had two main positions:

1) Subjective idealism: Reality is what I personally see, hear, etc.

Berkley argued for this under the principle of parsimony. This however ignores the fact that Occam's Razor demands objectivism from the onset.

Occam's Razor basically says to not multiply assumptions beyond what is necessary. Now we come to the big question of WHY?

Basically we do this to avoid having people make stuff up and turning science as well as philosophy into a guessing game. For if I was allowed to make as many assumptions up as I wanted to, we could literally justify any plausible proposition.

For example, two explanations for a rock flying through your window: your angry neighbor did it or a ghost did it.

Without Occam's Razor both statements are on equal footing, with it, the angry neighbor explanation wins out.

Now if subjective idealism is true, then there is no such thing as making stuff up. Anything I see or believe is then literally what is "real" so there is no reason for Occam's Razor.

This makes Occam's Razor an inappropriate standard for which to settle the question of objectivism or subjective idealism on.

Berkley's second position is known as objective idealism, the idea that reality is inside God's mind.

This position fails as it goes against the entire grain of Berkley's empericist standards i.e. seeing things makes them real...but then who's watching God? Certainly not I.

Also this explanation though objective is less parsimonious then materialism, as materialism only posits a substance, whereas idealism posits a substance plus God.

[quoudam72]

Stating that a less complex explanation is preferable does not specify by what criterion it is preferable. :)

[Phage]

Occam's Razor, which is the standard I am using states that we should not multiply beliefs beyond necessity. This means beliefs that allow for what is necessary for reasoning and evidence, like objectivism, but that we do not adhere to what is spurrious, pluralism.

Hence it states the simplest explanation is preffered as long as it doesn't throw out what is necessary.