Does classical materialism seem a little lacking in philosophical imagination to you?

[Helm]

This is what Classical Materialism entails when compared to the rival brands.


Classical Materialism

Mind affects environment?= No
Mind essential for the existence of the universe?= No
Mind survives death?= No
Universe explained in terms of= Things

Dualism


Mind affects environment?= Humans yes animals no
Mind essential for the existence of the universe?= No or optional extra
Mind survives death?= Humans only
Universe explained in terms of= Things and souls

Physicalism

Mind affects environment?= No
Mind essential for the existence of the universe?= No
Mind survives death?= No
Universe explained in terms of= Dependencies causality and structure


Kadampa Buddhism

Mind affects environment?= Yes
Mind essential for the existence of the universe?= Yes
Mind survives death?= Yes- all sentient beings
Universe explained in terms of= Dependencies causality and structure and mental continuum


My Own Stance

Mind Effects environment= No
Mind essential for the existence of the universe= Yes but only from our own perspective
Mind survives death= Probably for all sentient beings, but not something to base your life on
Universe explained in terms of= Dependencies causality and structure


The thing about materialism is that if you were to gradually replace every cell in your body with a new one until none of the original material remained at all you would in effect still be the same you, even though physically you'e someone entirely different. Since birth this has happened anyway so that's a point I would use against it. Also I don't feel you can get have a satisfactory explanation as to the origins of the universe through materialism which doesn't result in a messy infinite regression of stuff that doesn't really explain anything.

[Jack04]

In a word: No.

Your argument against materialism with respect to the continuation of one's idea of the self would only work were all cells replaced simultaneously. As it is, it is a gradual process, so it isn't a very strong argument. No one has yet demonstrated the existence of any kind of soul (or external mind), nor do I expect that they ever will. With that being the case, I don't see materialism as being lacking in imagination, more that it is simply satisfying Occam's Razor. Why induce a soul or mind which is external to the body (and all the baggage that comes with it) when such a thing isn't necessary?

[Helm]

In a word: No.

Your argument against materialism with respect to the continuation of one's idea of the self would only work were all cells replaced simultaneously.

I don't see why it should matter whether it's gradual or instant. You could probably even lter your physical form into something like this.



And you would still remain you regardless, so it would be a very different you.

[Jack04]

I don't see why it should matter whether it's gradual or instant. You could probably even lter your physical form into something like this.

Because your brain is essentially a computer. If you have two external hard-drives (and only two ports with which to attach them) you want to upgrade, were you to remove both simultaneously, you could not pass on their contents. Were you to replace one at a time, information could be retained. Your body itself, well that's not really relevant, since it is the mind you are talking about, the rest of the body follows with no real trouble.

[Helm]

Because your brain is essentially a computer. If you have two external hard-drives (and only two ports with which to attach them) you want to upgrade, were you to remove both simultaneously, you could not pass on their contents. Were you to replace one at a time, information could be retained. Your body itself, well that's not really relevant, since it is the mind you are talking about, the rest of the body follows with no real trouble.

Absolutely it's a computer but like I said you could still replace and change it and you would still be the same you only in a different physical and mental form, because you would then a have a new body and computer system. Say I were to re-arrange all the atoms of your body and turn you into this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's still you, only I've given you a much less sophisticated computer/brain so you'll find your mental abilities much reduced relative to what they are currently in your human form. Likewise I could kill you then recreate an exact clone of yourself with all the same memories who would believe them to be yourself, but in fact you would be dead and it would be someone else who has your body and who is using the same computer system.

[Jack04]

Firstly, the dog will have a different genetic make-up which is key, as are the bonds between molecules. So that's a complete non-sequitur.

Secondly, with respect to your kill/clone plan, what's your point? Assuming everything was identical then yes, it would be me. It not being a "nice" thought isn't relevant.

[Tankbuster]

Does not believing in fairies seem a little lacking in philosophical imagination?

Fairies affect environment?= No
Fairies essential for the existence of beautiful flowers?= No
Fairies make you survive death?= No
Universe explained in terms of = Things which aren't fairies

?

It's not about imagination, it's about what's most likely to be true.

[Helm]

Does not believing in fairies seem a little lacking in philosophical imagination?

Fairies are a bit superfluous to the nature of existence.

[The Dude]

Fairies are a bit superfluous to the nature of existence.

Tankbuster's point being that the nature of existence isn't concerned with what humans think is imaginative enough to qualify as an explanation. Maybe we don't need much imagination to figure it all out. Maybe we do? I just wonder what the point you're trying to make is. Do you know anything about materialism?

[Helm]

Tankbuster's point being that the nature of existence isn't concerned with what humans think is imaginative enough to qualify as an explanation. Maybe we don't need much imagination to figure it all out. Maybe we do? I just wonder what the point you're trying to make is. Do you know anything about materialism?

Without imagination we would still be stuck in the caves making stone tools it's just one of those things. So I think it's good that the majority of the human race still has retained some primeval spark and the desire to question things, even if it means having to put up with astrology, homeopathy and Uri Gellers spoon bending tricks.

"Clearly"? Not clearly at all. There is no reason to believe that we are anything more than an (admittedly complex) combination of chemicals and electromagnetic interactions. As I've already said, the fact that cells replicate explains the continuation of a person (because, as I've already said, two particles of the same type are fundamentally indistinguishable). Adding this idea of a "birth particle" is unjustified.

But none of this stuff physical appears to be reasponsible for actually bringing you into existence as a being it only defines the nature of the being you are while you're alive. All this matter can, was and will be radically altered, not to the to extent of being turned into a dog but that would still work s well if you could do it. Also take the fetus in the womb, at what point does it it's beingness suddenly explode into existence from the literal nothingness that was there before? I don't really think it works quite like that tbh. It is is some kind of slow and gradual gradual process of emergeance that much is sure but there won't be some kind of instant hit.

A dog has a different chemical make-up to a human. Where the atomic make-up may be the same individually (which I suspect it is not) is irrelevant as it is the bonds between chemicals that make up our genetic code. As far as I'm aware, materialism doesn't say that we are one and the same as a rock with exactly the same elemental composition. It says that we are a combination of chemicals, chemical reactions and bonds and it is those which define the nature of the beast. Your argument that in a materialist's world "humans = dogs" doesn't work.

That's what I mean it's an very different bioloical organism to a human, but in theory I if I could physically transform you in such a way that dog would be you, in that your exact same consciousness would be within in it, though you would have the mind of a dog rather than a human if I gave you a dogs brain to go with the body. If I transformed you into a plant your conscious self would be completely lost to the physical universe which would the same thing as a death would physically extract it from your body.

Which is something I explained via a very simple analogy at the very start. Cells replicate, data is transferred. There is no contradiction within materialism. In my eyes, assuming anything more complicated is entirely unjustified (with the possible exception of physicalism which sounds largely the same from the perspective of physics, though I'm an expert on neither). Use of imagination over and beyond that which is necessary generally over-complicates matters for no good reason.

I just think it shows some interest to ask questions like this and as a species that's what ideally should be doing. It doesn't have to be a system of religious practices or morals to base your life upon or anything like that. Humanism is perfectly fine for instance, you don't have to worry about mythical beings of judgement and karma levels. Even if there was such a thing actions should ideally speak louder than beliefs.

[The Dude]

I'm interested in answers of substance not these constant generic one-liners you seem to have in abundance. I'll try again: what concern of the nature of existence is it that we do or do not possess an imaginative way of explaining it? If an explanation is adequate, are then all demands for an explanation not met? Where does imagination come into play? What does imagination matter at all when an answer is satisfactory.

I still don't get the point of this thread. Classical materialism seems to be lacking in imagination to you. What does it matter? If it's true, it doesn't. If it's false, it may. But you haven't posited that it's false or true, you haven't given your opinion either way. You just said that you think it's sort of strange and the only objection you have posited is the most common of all counter arguments. All you do is lure people into threads to then bombard them with what you no doubt believe are great philosophical revelations of your own.

[Helm]

*snip*

Lets just say if you would like more people to abandon their fantatically religious or superstious beliefs a softer much less materialist form of atheism just based on practical everyday morality is what we ideally need. Going around stating that all religious beliefs are bull in their entirety and this is all there is so deal with it won't win any converts. It's also not a particularly philsophically valid as this isn't knowledge we have based on evidence it's merely based on ignorance. It's like saying "This is all we know about so this is all there is", we can put sock in that because we don't know anything about this.

I've recently been reading the Atheism a Very Short Introduction and it does seem to put the materialist view forward as absolute fact, and all the other well known atheists seem to be this way inclinded as well. The atitude seems to be " it's either supernatural spirits and solid matter or it's solid matter and nothing else so take your pick ". It's probably not at all that black and white for the reasons I suggested, and few things ever are as clear cut as that.

[Denny Crane!]

It is only lacking to you because you are seeking fulfillment in something, some kind of truth that you can hang your hat on and feel relevant to the universe.

I hope you get over it for your sake.

[Helm]

I just dont think materialism is a neccessary thing to believe in, necessary to a certain point perhaps because we can do without thinking there are spooks and things floating around. But what we can have is atheism without the materialism, we're talking about some kind of super atheism (closer to the true principal of atheism as a lack of belief) that no believer could find any real fault with, it's a bucket that can hold water without any holes in it. We don't everything so why bother pretending that we do? It's not a case of take what religious people believe then believe the exact opposite that's just reactionary. You can be skepitical and somewhat open minded in regard to anything we don't know for sure, though of course it's always better to want to see the evidence should anyone claim anything.

[Denny Crane!]

What has necessity to do with anything? Evidence should be the only thing that truly informs belief, evidence combined with logic and reason. I don't know wtf necessity has to do with anything.

I think you are coming to conclusions then looking for things to fit into them.

[Helm]

Wheres your evidence for materialism? Personally I would agree with a number of theological arguements against the concept even if I'm not going to buy into the actual specifics of the religions themselves, it's a load of old cobblers of course, none of it seems particularly scientific or rational, or in many cases even that well thought out.

Take a look at the Christian concept of how it's meant to work.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Denny Crane!]

Eh what do you mean where is my evidence for materialism? It is all evidence that is the point of it, things we can experience see and test. Helm, no offence pal but I'm only two posts in and this is getting to be to much like hard work to be fun.

[Helm]

We certainly have evidence that everything we can see hee in this universe is made from matter/energy and is the product of matter and energy. But materialism states that matter and energy is all that exists, without matter we're literally nothing. But you have evidence to support this? I think it's a heck of a claim to be making when we know as little as we know about the nature of the universe, it's right up there with many religious claims. Therefore the rules of skepticism and evidence apply, it's a golden rule. And did represtent a few basic flaws in regard to materialism phiosophy, matter only seems to define who and what we are at any given time it doesn't produce something out of nothing, nothing can do that as well you know.

[Denny Crane!]

We have evidence for that and that is the point. If you don't have evidence for something it is unasnwerable and therefore utterly irrelevant to life - that is straight up buddhism right there not just materialism.

It it isn't testable then it is irrelevant. It is such an ethnocentric concern really and that alone makes it slightly contemptible to me, no one is seriously considering whether amazonian tree spirits exist, mostly it is almost always the gods they grew up to be told to believe in. Granted you don't seem to suffer from this, it is a different malady of rushing from one belief to another in the hope of finding some answers.

[Helm]

We have evidence for that and that is the point. If you don't have evidence for something it is unasnwerable and therefore utterly irrelevant to life - that is straight up buddhism right there not just materialism.

I agree so what we can do is say materialism isn't particularly relevant to atheism and forget all about it.

It it isn't testable then it is irrelevant. It is such an ethnocentric concern really and that alone makes it slightly contemptible to me, no one is seriously considering whether amazonian tree spirits exist, mostly it is almost always the gods they grew up to be told to believe in. Granted you don't seem to suffer from this, it is a different malady of rushing from one belief to another in the hope of finding some answers.

This isn't meant to be a belief and see materialism as a belief that atheists seem to have and it is in many ways a weak belief because even if true it would render the universe ultimately unknowable, matter can't explain matter. It's the weak area theists like to exploit, I've been accused of nihilism for instance because the assumption is if I don't believe in this or that particulalry mythological entity I must somehow believe in literally a literal nothing. That's not the case I'm just trying leave the greater mysteries blank. Atheists with their tendency to stamp materialism all over it isn't alowing for that and that's my only real gripe with it, it seems like as much a dead end to me as saying the universe was made by magic. Just because you don't like the magic it doesn't mean you just get to scream matter, it's about thinking rationally, asking questions and looking at the evidence.