I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

Bernardo

Scholar
B
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
92
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream. This ontology is often called monistic idealism. My books, videos and blog expand on all this, so I won't elaborate here (moreover, apparently I lose rights to anything I post here). What I want to do is this: in my upcoming book, I am taking the time to dissect and expose all materialist counter-arguments against monistic idealism. So far I have selected 16 of them, which I list below. I argue in the upcoming book that all these points fail because they (a) beg the question; (b) contradict materialism itself (!); (c) totally misunderstand and misrepresent monistic idealism (i.e. straw man); (d) misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence; or (e) fail simple sound logic.

So my challenge to you is this: can you come up with other, better arguments for materialism, beyond the ones I list below? I doubt, but remain curious and open minded.

The current list:

1) Our sense perceptions provide direct evidence for a world outside consciousness.
2) Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it’s clear that reality is outside consciousness.
3) Because we are separate beings witnessing the same external reality, reality has to be outside consciousness.
4) It is untenable to maintain that there is no reality independent of consciousness, for there is plenty of evidence about what was going on in the Universe before consciousness evolved.
5) It is not parsimonious to say that reality is in consciousness, because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.
6) Reality is clearly not inside our heads, therefore monistic idealism is wrong.
7) Monistic idealism is too metaphysical.
8) There are strong correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. Clearly, thus, the brain generates consciousness.
9) Unconscious brain activity precedes the awareness of certain decisions, showing a clear arrow of causation from purely material processes to conscious experience.
10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
11) During dreamless sleep, or under general anesthesia, we are clearly unconscious. Yet, we don’t cease to exist because we become temporarily unconscious. Clearly, thus, reality cannot be in consciousness.
12) The stability and consistency of the laws of physics show that reality is outside consciousness.
13) To postulate a collective and obfuscated part of consciousness as the source of consensus reality is equivalent to postulating a reality outside consciousness.
14) Why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world?
15) Monistic idealism is solipsistic and, as such, unfalsifiable.
16) One cannot prove that monistic idealism is true.

Although you have to wait for the publication of my new book to see the refutation of all these 16 arguments, I can guarantee to you that only smoldering ashes will be left of them after I am done. ;-)

So can you come up with anything else? What's your best argument in defense of materialism? What's your best argument against monistic idealism? Apologies in advance for the fact that I will have to ignore trolls given my limited time. As for the rest of you, your input will be sincerely appreciated.
 
Bernardo said:
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream. This ontology is often called monistic idealism. My books, videos and blog expand on all this, so I won't elaborate here (moreover, apparently I lose rights to anything I post here). What I want to do is this: in my upcoming book, I am taking the time to dissect and expose all materialist counter-arguments against monistic idealism. So far I have selected 16 of them, which I list below. I argue in the upcoming book that all these points fail because they (a) beg the question; (b) contradict materialism itself (!); (c) totally misunderstand and misrepresent monistic idealism (i.e. straw man); (d) misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence; or (e) fail simple sound logic.

So my challenge to you is this: can you come up with other, better arguments for materialism, beyond the ones I list below? I doubt, but remain curious and open minded.

The current list:

1) Our sense perceptions provide direct evidence for a world outside consciousness.
2) Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it’s clear that reality is outside consciousness.
3) Because we are separate beings witnessing the same external reality, reality has to be outside consciousness.
4) It is untenable to maintain that there is no reality independent of consciousness, for there is plenty of evidence about what was going on in the Universe before consciousness evolved.
5) It is not parsimonious to say that reality is in consciousness, because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.
6) Reality is clearly not inside our heads, therefore monistic idealism is wrong.
7) Monistic idealism is too metaphysical.
8) There are strong correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. Clearly, thus, the brain generates consciousness.
9) Unconscious brain activity precedes the awareness of certain decisions, showing a clear arrow of causation from purely material processes to conscious experience.
10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
11) During dreamless sleep, or under general anesthesia, we are clearly unconscious. Yet, we don’t cease to exist because we become temporarily unconscious. Clearly, thus, reality cannot be in consciousness.
12) The stability and consistency of the laws of physics show that reality is outside consciousness.
13) To postulate a collective and obfuscated part of consciousness as the source of consensus reality is equivalent to postulating a reality outside consciousness.
14) Why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world?
15) Monistic idealism is solipsistic and, as such, unfalsifiable.
16) One cannot prove that monistic idealism is true.

Although you have to wait for the publication of my new book to see the refutation of all these 16 arguments, I can guarantee to you that only smoldering ashes will be left of them after I am done. ;-)
Click to expand...

Is that a double-money-back guarantee? If I order now do I get two books for one easy payment of $49.99? Is your book titled Materialist Straw Man Arguments I Made Up to Knock Down? Didn't the publisher ask you to tighten that title up? Are you the publisher?
 
Resume said:
Is that a double-money-back guarantee? If I order now do I get two books for one easy payment of $49.99? Is your book titled Materialist Straw Man Arguments I Made Up to Knock Down? Didn't the publisher ask you to tighten that title up? Are you the publisher?
Click to expand...

Ahh, so delightful. JREF at its best!
 
Bernardo said:
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream. This ontology is often called monistic idealism. My books, videos and blog expand on all this, so I won't elaborate here (moreover, apparently I lose rights to anything I post here). What I want to do is this: in my upcoming book, I am taking the time to dissect and expose all materialist counter-arguments against monistic idealism. So far I have selected 16 of them, which I list below. I argue in the upcoming book that all these points fail because they (a) beg the question; (b) contradict materialism itself (!); (c) totally misunderstand and misrepresent monistic idealism (i.e. straw man); (d) misunderstand or misrepresent the evidence; or (e) fail simple sound logic.

So my challenge to you is this: can you come up with other, better arguments for materialism, beyond the ones I list below? I doubt, but remain curious and open minded.

The current list:

1) Our sense perceptions provide direct evidence for a world outside consciousness.
2) Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it’s clear that reality is outside consciousness.
3) Because we are separate beings witnessing the same external reality, reality has to be outside consciousness.
4) It is untenable to maintain that there is no reality independent of consciousness, for there is plenty of evidence about what was going on in the Universe before consciousness evolved.
5) It is not parsimonious to say that reality is in consciousness, because that would require postulating an unfathomably complex entity to be imagining reality.
6) Reality is clearly not inside our heads, therefore monistic idealism is wrong.
7) Monistic idealism is too metaphysical.
8) There are strong correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. Clearly, thus, the brain generates consciousness.
9) Unconscious brain activity precedes the awareness of certain decisions, showing a clear arrow of causation from purely material processes to conscious experience.
10) Because psychoactive drugs and brain trauma can markedly change subjective experience, it’s clear that the brain generates consciousness.
11) During dreamless sleep, or under general anesthesia, we are clearly unconscious. Yet, we don’t cease to exist because we become temporarily unconscious. Clearly, thus, reality cannot be in consciousness.
12) The stability and consistency of the laws of physics show that reality is outside consciousness.
13) To postulate a collective and obfuscated part of consciousness as the source of consensus reality is equivalent to postulating a reality outside consciousness.
14) Why would consciousness deceive us by simulating a materialist world?
15) Monistic idealism is solipsistic and, as such, unfalsifiable.
16) One cannot prove that monistic idealism is true.

Although you have to wait for the publication of my new book to see the refutation of all these 16 arguments, I can guarantee to you that only smoldering ashes will be left of them after I am done. ;-)

So can you come up with anything else? What's your best argument in defense of materialism? What's your best argument against monistic idealism? Apologies in advance for the fact that I will have to ignore trolls given my limited time. As for the rest of you, your input will be sincerely appreciated.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason for this thread?
 
Last edited:
Bernardo said:
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney. I subscribe to the much more parsimonious and skeptical notion that reality is in a trans-personal form of consciousness, of which we are localizations -- like whirlpools in a stream.
Click to expand...


I don't think you completely have a handle on what "parsimonious" means.
 
I suggest that if it is soon to be found in book shops, that it has gone to press. Therefore your claim that this thread will make your book more complete is as unsustainable as your theory. In other words, they're both bollocks.
 
I will wait for the book. And then ignore it.

I am not saying that I will ignore any arguments of your own that you choose to present here, but I don't think you have presented any. If you wish to do so, even at the risk of reducing this forum to smoldering ashes, please go ahead.
 
MikeG said:
I suggest that if it is soon to be found in book shops, that it has gone to press. Therefore your claim that this thread will make your book more complete is as unsustainable as your theory. In other words, they're both bollocks.
Click to expand...

I love the way you guys always take the discussion totally away from the actual substance as soon as you feel cornered.

There is such a thing as an advance publishing agreement, you know? And the best publishers turn books around in only months.
 
You seem to want to sell a book. That's pretty materialistic.

Why do you care about money if you don't think it's actually real?
 
Giordano said:
I will wait for the book. And then ignore it.

I am not saying that I will ignore any arguments of your own that you choose to present here, but I don't think you have presented any. If you wish to do so, even at the risk of reducing this forum to smoldering ashes, please go ahead.
Click to expand...

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

There, the copyright is mine.

Nothing to add to the list? Nada?
 
Bernardo said:
I love the way you guys always take the discussion totally away from the actual substance as soon as you feel cornered.

There is such a thing as an advance publishing agreement, you know? And the best publishers turn books around in only months.
Click to expand...

Which publisher would that be?
 
Spindrift said:
You seem to be using a rather non-standard definition of 'soon' then. Similar to your use of 'parsimonious'.
Click to expand...

Nothing to add to the list? Nada? I am hoping at least SOME people here actually have something of relevance to say.
 
I can't think of any 100% sound argument for materialism that doesn't rely on assumptions. It's an extremely handy thing to assume though.

Mind you, the same goes for consciousness, free will, logic, existence, etc.
 
Spindrift said:
Which publisher would that be?
Click to expand...

So, let's get this straight. You decided that it is more relevant to argue against my claim that I can publish a book (which would be my fifth), instead of arguing for materialism; is that right?
 
Bernardo said:
I love the way you guys always take the discussion totally away from the actual substance.......
Click to expand...

Sorry, there's some substance here is there? You might want to point it out. I can't see any links to any published research.
 
Bernardo said:
Nothing to add to the list? Nada? I am hoping at least SOME people here actually have something of relevance to say.
Click to expand...

You go first. You brought up your book, but don't care to "elaborate" on its substance. You say you're gonna ignore trolls ,yet post like one. You guarantee smoldering ash but your Zippo needs butane.
 
One Tenth said:
I can't think of any 100% sound argument for materialism that doesn't rely on assumptions. It's an extremely handy thing to assume though.

Mind you, the same goes for consciousness, free will, logic, existence, etc.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing. Materialism is the assumption you start with. You first assume that the universe is real, then you experiment on it. You have a few possible outcomes:

1. The experiments show that the universe is material because it is.
2. The experiments show that the universe is material but it isn't.
3. The experiments show that the universe isn't material because it isn't.

All experimentation has agreed with the first two, so we're down to those two, and whatever possibilities option 2 has.

The universe could be actively deceiving us, malevolently or not; or it could be that our own belief that the universe is material makes it seem so. The former assumes an outside influence for which there can never be evidence. The latter would makes us the WH40k Orks.

There is no logical reason to believe anything but outcome number 1.
 
One Tenth said:
I can't think of any 100% sound argument for materialism that doesn't rely on assumptions. It's an extremely handy thing to assume though.

Mind you, the same goes for consciousness, free will, logic, existence, etc.
Click to expand...

Finally something with content. I would argue that the existence of consciousness is the primary datum of reality and the one undeniable empirical fact. And that is the sole ontological entity (and therefore primitive) that monistic idealism requires. Now, the argument behind monistic idealism, of course, also requires that we grant validity to logic, although, as you point out, we cannot use logic to argue for the validity of logic. In this sense, certain things are indeed assumed, but none more than what materialism assumes. My goal isn't to prove anything (that's for naive positivists), but to show that, as far as logic and empirical evidence go, monistic idealism is a far BETTER ontology than materialism.
 
Bernardo said:
So, let's get this straight. You decided that it is more relevant to argue against my claim that I can publish a book (which would be my fifth), instead of arguing for materialism; is that right?
Click to expand...

Pretty much any one can get a vanity press to publish themselves.

What exactly happens after you publish your book and all your arguments are not refuted?

And if it will make you happy.

Consciousness is the only carrier of reality anyone can ever know for sure; it is the one undeniable, empirical fact of existence.
Click to expand...
Why is it the one undeniable, empirical fact of existence?

Is it undeniable because it has been proven so? If so, by whom?

Or, is it undeniable because you don't want to deny it? And without that assumption your house of cards falls?
 
I don't subscribe to either materialism OR idealism.

Check out the idea of the holographic universe (the one from string theory). I don't think you'll like it, though; while nothing is "real", everything is meaningless--so your hopes and dreams and ideas have nothing to do with shaping it.
 
ehcks said:
But that's the thing. Materialism is the assumption you start with. You first assume that the universe is real, then you experiment on it. You have a few possible outcomes:

1. The experiments show that the universe is material because it is.
2. The experiments show that the universe is material but it isn't.
3. The experiments show that the universe isn't material because it isn't.

All experimentation has agreed with the first two, so we're down to those two, and whatever possibilities option 2 has.

The universe could be actively deceiving us, malevolently or not; or it could be that our own belief that the universe is material makes it seem so. The former assumes an outside influence for which there can never be evidence. The latter would makes us the WH40k Orks.

There is no logical reason to believe anything but outcome number 1.
Click to expand...

This is such a complete misunderstanding of philosophy of science! Materialism is an ontology, not an experimental outcome or conclusion. It's one of several possible ontological interpretations of experimental outcomes. All that can be experimentally demonstrated are the patterns and regularities of reality, not their ontological interpretations.
 
Spindrift said:
Pretty much any one can get a vanity press to publish themselves.

What exactly happens after you publish your book and all your arguments are not refuted?

And if it will make you happy.


Why is it the one undeniable, empirical fact of existence?

Is it undeniable because it has been proven so? If so, by whom?

Or, is it undeniable because you don't want to deny it? And without that assumption your house of cards falls?
Click to expand...


Unbelievable...
 
MikeG said:
You may not be hiding anything, but you aren't supplying anything either. Like..........erm................you know....................evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you need a more thorough and detailed explanation for how to click on an hyperlink? <snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited. Rule 0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Piscivore said:
I don't subscribe to either materialism OR idealism.

Check out the idea of the holographic universe (the one from string theory). I don't think you'll like it, though; while nothing is "real", everything is meaningless--so your hopes and dreams and ideas have nothing to do with shaping it.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you might perhaps be projecting some of your own prejudices and expectations on me?
 
Bernardo said:
This is such a complete misunderstanding of philosophy of science! Materialism is an ontology, not an experimental outcome or conclusion. It's one of several possible ontological interpretations of experimental outcomes. All that can be experimentally demonstrated are the patterns and regularities of reality, not their ontological interpretations.
Click to expand...

Presupposing that your claim can not be experimented on is outright stating that it's unfalsifiable and therefore a meaningless claim.
 
Lost interested in this for today, folks. The silliness is a little too concentrated for my taste for now... :) Will check back tomorrow to see if anyone has ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE LIST!
 
Bernardo said:
Do you need a more thorough and detailed explanation for how to click on an hyperlink? Maybe a user's manual for a mouse?
Click to expand...

You want me to read your book before commenting on your thread? Hmmmm, OK, I see.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom