What is the basis for scientific materialism?

What's the basis outside of belief?

I get into a lot of debates surrounding these issues and it amazes me how many scientist and people in general act like the universe must be explained in materialistic terms. There's no reason why this is the case. There's no evidence that an objective material universe exists but still this must be the case.

Let's define materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why is this the case? Why does the universe have to have a material explanation?

Did some scientific Moses come down from Mt. Sinai with tablets that said:

Thou shall explain the universe only in terms of materialism.

What's the basis for materialism in science?

a reply to: neoholographic

Its all a complex symphony of traveling waves and standing waves.

Why would you assume that the universe ISN'T materialistic??

There's no proof of anything else.

double post

a reply to: CB328

What?

Show me the proof that the universe is materialistic as you say. I have been debating this issue for years but I have yet to see proof of this materialistic universe.

a reply to: neoholographic

There's no evidence that an objective material universe exists but still this must be the case.

That´s what you constantly repeat, yes.

What kind of proof would satisfy you? How about proofing the universe is a simulation? Now, before you post videos about computer correcting code (that btw isn´t really the case), those do not count as "evidence".

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: neoholographic

Its all a complex symphony of traveling waves and standing waves.

Nice metaphor.

lol @ there is no evidence that a material universe exists.

What happens to a brain that ceases to manifest a particular function - such as recognizing another persons face and being able to 'know' them based on that 'information'? This state, called "prosopagnosia", happens, and ones its recognized at the descriptive, diagnostic level, lo and behold, the injury to be found is almost ALWAYS in thefusiform gyrus

What does this then mean? It means your consciousness 'arises' like 'a mist' from specific brain interactions between different 'nuclei' in the subcortex and the six layers of the cerebral cortex (with it's 16 billion neurons).

I could literally go through the brain at a fairly detailed level and provide evidence for what these specific nuclei 'do'.

Do you know what evidence science can muster? Comparative evolutionary biology reveals the presence of a formative homology (or shared structure) between all animals with a brain. Evidence like this, which was not known by Darwin, makes evolution virtually indisputable - undoubtedly, based on evidence each person can explore and ascertain on ones own - and this makes the theory of evolution the most epistemologically plausible explanation for how things work.

Now, Platonic idealism claims the exact reverse of this picture (I bet you believe this yourself). It is the only other possibility.

Now, even more importantly, "scientific materialism", or 'physicalism', is true by recognizing the need to start from the origin of things, and work from there. This is how every situation is worked out; I bet you can barely have conversations in your own life that don't make reference to, and rely upon, 'origin' metaphors. In fact, it would be impossible to even say anything coherent without noting the significance of cause and effect, and therefore, if cause and effect are the most important categories for clear thinking, the person who seeks to ignore is playing with reality as if it didn't at the same time mean "playing with your own self-structuring". I love quoting Eco here:

“So we attempted to do what was not allowed us, what we were not prepared for. Manipulating the words of the Book, we attempted to construct a golem.” “I don’t understand….” “You can’t understand. You’re the prisoner of what you created. But your story in the outside world is still unfolding. I don’t know how, but you can still escape it. For me, it’s different. I am experiencing in my body everything we did, as a joke, in the Plan.” “Don’t talk nonsense. It’s a matter of cells….” “And what are cells? For months, like devout rabbis, we uttered different combinations of the letters of the Book. GCC, CGC, GCG, CGG. What our lips said, our cells learned. What did my cells do? They invented a different Plan, and now they are proceeding on their own, creating a history, a unique, private history. My cells have learned that you can blaspheme by anagrammatizing the Book, and all the books of the world. And they have learned to do this now with my body. They invert, transpose, alternate, transform themselves into cells unheard of, new cells without meaning, or with meaning contrary to the right meaning. There must be a right meaning and a wrong meaning; otherwise you die. My cells joke, without faith, blindly.” – Umberto Eco, Foucaults Pendulum, pg. 566, Harcourt, 1988

In other words, if you continue to pursue your "to the left, to the left" (like in the Beyoncé song) ideology, you will continue to reason along the lines of a way of thinking that allows you to feel safe. The universe is nice this way: it provides succor to even delusional, even evil propositions, simply because its basis in symmetry - which means, symmetry between physically separate, individual human selves - in "moments of being recognized by an other", is the real source for psychological action, and with this source, now 'abstractized' as the self's relationship to the 'universe at large', the self gets carried away with the thought that everything it does happens in some 'mental realm' - as if there wasn't a physical brain producing specific, complex functions, which - if you were to take it away, would probably mean an irreversible transformation of what we could call "experience".

In other words, in a body, you can have control by organizing your awareness around this 'point'. But take the body away? I'd imagine you lose all control - all leverage - over psychological and perceptual experience. Cognition - the capacity to "do", probably goes by-by as well; or, perhaps, like in actual reality, maybe 'love', gives freedom (even ontologically, after death); whereas the stuff in this human society of ours, going by thousands upon thousands of years, is based in rote action, wishfulness, pridefulness, shame-phobia (pretty much only the Jews emphasize it in their holy writings), and most of all, a completely idealistic way of relating to ideas and actions. To 'fetishize', seems to be consonant with 'paganism'. Its the putting of an insignificant self-organized value, deriving its existence from actual interactions experienced by the self in relation to "not being recognized or known" (i.e. "respected", treated as a person with value to offer), over the cause and effect facts that ultimately make us what we are.

To have such a negative relationship to what is felt by me to be a simple 'matter of fact' thing, is to ignore what trauma has done to you and deny that it has any importance.

Do you know what mourning is? It's a mammalian homeostasis response to profound loss to an object the self is attached to. There's even a part of our brain dedicated to representing the PANIC of not having the longed for other. It is the source of the emotion - and no "magic" will make that dynamical process go away. We can dissociate; we can pretend, and imagine, and idealize, that the physical world doesn't work by constantly repeating laws, but we will screw ourselves emotionally as well as in our relationships if we decide to relate to the world this way.

Anyways, humility precedes sanity. You really need to accept your fundamental 'equality' with the other - neither better than, nor worse than - if you're ever to resolve the conflicts within your psychoneurological experience.

It's all symmetry. Unfair or illogical reasoning motivated by anger is not symmetrical: it does not honor what reality tells you is real. It's you ignoring reality and arrogantly superimposing your wish for it to be different.

Anyways, my position is that of CS Peirce: objective idealism. This means mind is the basis of things, but it is impossible to say 'how' that is. "Objective" means there are primary forces which apply at all the different scales we look at, implying that there is a 'ordering' to the universe which is beyond human control to change.

a reply to: verschickter

Sure it counts as evidence.

It's more evidence than the universe is materialistic because I say it is. There's not a shred of evidence to support such a notion. There's evidence that points to the universe as a hologram when you look at things like black hole thermodynamics and the limit physics puts on information that can occupy a volume of space.

Or superposition, entanglement and non locality. Tell me, how can a material particle be in superposition or correlated with a particle miles away?

a reply to: neoholographic

Then explain real quick in a couple of sentences -without any google-fu- what this error correction code is.

Tell me, how can a material particle be in superposition or correlated with a particle miles away?

just because entanglement is not yet explained it undermines the idea that the universe is materialistic?

I believe Wikipedia has it slightly wrong here. It's not that scientific materialists don't use that as a working definition, but I believe science has evolved that way over time. Scientists don't always adhere to the scientific method. If they did, they would have discovered what Tesla says they will (in your quote) if they pay attention. The attitude seems to be as reflected by Steven Pinker when he says that science has not found it necessary to explain anything by other than a function of materialism. You can see how they got there. The real beginnings of the scientific method were a result of a reaction against mumbo jumbo religions that based their "Truth" on faith alone. Science basically said, "Faith alone does not pay the bills" But as a result of strict adherence to the rules of science, you can't deny that it has resulted in an incredible series of discoveries about the material world. Juxtaposed against stuff like "Jesus died for your sins," science clearly wins.

Now scientists like Pinker will tell you that science is self-correcting, but that doesn't admit to the conservatism in science that prevents exactly that from happening. A couple of examples: Plate tectonics. A scientist called Wegner actually figured it out, but when he presented it to the scientific community he was laughed at and ostracized. Science finally figured out he was right. It DID, in fact, self-correct, but it was too late for Wegner.

But this second is more contemporary and though the battle is essentially over and the war is won, people have, by and large, not figured out that it is over yet. That has to do with catastrophism and geology. Geology has always been about gradualism. Any theories on catastrophes have been hotly avoided because they sound too much like religious stories. Atlantis is Plato’s myth and Noah’s Flood is nothing more than a biblical story with no foundation whatsoever. When anyone broached the subject of a past catastrophe, science reacted with, “Jesus and God! Kill it with fire!” because ANYTHING that smelled the slightest bit religious had to be untrue.

However, the Younger Dryas DID happen. The sea level DID rise 400 feet, and anybody who lived within 400 feet of altitude of the ocean was buried in water about 12,000 BC or so. Flood myths are found all over the world. And Noah’s Flood DID happen. That DOES NOT MEAN God did it because of a corrupt world. All it means is that a comet split apart above the North American ice cap, melted the ice, and caused a (coastal) flood all over the world. No God required.

We don’t have time to go into this here, but the idea of a massive flood has been semi-accepted by the scientific community with the acceptance of the idea of Lake Missoula bursting its ice dams and causing the massive destruction in Eastern Washington state that is apparent to anyone who looks at it. Anyone interested in this ought to check out Graham Hancock’s “Magicians of the Gods” for greater detail.

I present this as an example of science “working” (or not) quite slowly, resisting new ideas, but gradually coming around as new evidence is presented. As usual, it’s not always that entrenched scientists are persuaded their ideas are wrong, but they die off and are replaced by a new generation where these ideas are not new at all. That’s just human nature.

Now lets talk about the paranormal….

a reply to: neoholographic

I have a strange feeling that you believe in some cool stuff that we are yet unable to explain or even measure with our current scientific instruments. Maybe we will never be able to measure and quantify those ethereal strings. Wouldn't it be cool if it were designed that way?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the non materialist universe, if you could please dumb it down a little so I can follow.

I try to follow your posts but I must admit, most of it is over my head. I am not even come close to being able to apply your knowledge to my reality. But I try every time.

originally posted by: neoholographic
What's the basis outside of belief?

I get into a lot of debates surrounding these issues and it amazes me how many scientist and people in general act like the universe must be explained in materialistic terms. There's no reason why this is the case. There's no evidence that an objective material universe exists but still this must be the case.

Let's define materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why is this the case? Why does the universe have to have a material explanation?

Did some scientific Moses come down from Mt. Sinai with tablets that said:

Thou shall explain the universe only in terms of materialism.

What's the basis for materialism in science?

The materialistic is by definition that which we can measure with our senses or with our senses as augmented by tools of our devising.

Even science, perhaps especially science, concedes that there are many things we can't currently measure. They acknowledge that there are 'measurements' of important that we cannot even conceive of due to our limited 'sensory suite'.

That leaves most of reality in the 'unknown unknown' category.

a reply to: neoholographic

Is there any difference between Materialism; Scientism; Catholicism; Luciferianism; Deism; Nothingism?

Are any of them more than a belief system, or a doctrine?

What is so evident to all, as to not be a belief, and none could argue about?

a reply to: ClovenSky


In all probability, everything is explicable by existing knowledge of physics.

"Mind" is electromagnetism in action. That is, it relies upon synapse-synapse connections between individual neurons which are electrical dipoles - with polarized inside-outside ends and front-back ends. This is how electricity moves within the brain. and why, when neuroscientists study emotion, perception, or cognition states, they find the same parts lighting up.

The "self", as in magic, or something of that kind, is probably a formative logic similar to the way human bodies are held together by a 'fractal' like principle which works from the bottom-up, in quarks, protons, atoms, molecules, upwards, and 'self-states', or states of self-experience which are organized by social identifications based in the cortex, and functional motivational states based in the brain stem. This 'top-down' dimension meets up with the 'bottom-up' symmetry structuring of the matter which makes us up.

If you take into account how 'values' function as superordinate 'attractors' that hold more than one people under its orbit, then you can figure out 'what' magic is about, what its working upon, and how it works.

It operates through an affective state that recognizes the 'external' world to be the ultimate source of its own existence; that is, the bodily self and the world are "one", and through this contemplative procedure, implicit in any magical activity, the self is able to effect change.

But despite this, it never escapes physical laws. Physical laws are always there, and always working from the 'ground-up'. The 'top-down', if it exists, exists not as anything other than as a capacity 'to do'.

a reply to: neoholographic

I am not a scientist but isn’t it the case that science (I.e. discoveries in quantum mechanics) has discovered that we do not live in a conventional material existence?

a reply to: Astrocyte

Astrocyte, I love you sir. While neo is confusing to me when I try and understand their ideas, you blow me out of the water. Sometimes I get a formed idea or pictures from neo's words but I will need a lot more education to even glimpse the world through your eyes.

And it is not through the lack of trying. I found out the hard way that rereading multiple times still leaves me dumbfounded. I hope sometimes that it will sit in my subconscious and when I awake, the clarity will be there. I am still waiting. Well, I guess it is time to start rereading.

What a great weekend

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: neoholographic

I have a strange feeling that you believe in some cool stuff that we are yet unable to explain or even measure with our current scientific instruments. Maybe we will never be able to measure and quantify those ethereal strings. Wouldn't it be cool if it were designed that way?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the non materialist universe, if you could please dumb it down a little so I can follow.

I try to follow your posts but I must admit, most of it is over my head. I am not even come close to being able to apply your knowledge to my reality. But I try every time.

Thanks for your post. I will explain to you why a materialistic universe doesn't exist. There's no evidence to support such a notion and that's why you're hearing mostly hyperbole in the responses.

1. There's no evidence that a 3D objective reality exist. In fact, the laws of physics LIMITS the information that can occupy a volume of space. This information is found on a 2D surface surrounding the volume of space and not the volume itself. This means information is more fundamental than anything we call matter.



2. Quantum teleportation shows us that what we call matter means nothing to the reality of the object. We send information about the state of a particle from point A to point B. When this occurs, what we call matter is destroyed. It becomes an incoherent mess. So what we call matter is like playdough that is configured based on information not anything called matter.



3. Quantum field theory tells us that what we call subatomic particles are excitations of an underlying quantum field. Science tried to break the universe down to chunks of "matter" but it didn't work.

QFT treats particles as excited states of an underlying field, so these are called field quanta. In quantum field theory, quantum mechanical interactions among particles are described by interaction terms among the corresponding underlying quantum fields.

en.wikipedia.org...

3.Quantum Mechanics tells us the universe is non local and local realism is dead.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

www.nature.com...

4. Even Einstein told us the distinction between past, present and future are a persistent illusion. Everything we do in a materialist universe depends on the distinction of past, present and future. Birthdays, going to work, holidays and more depend on this distinction.

5. Most of what we call matter is empty space.

If atoms are mostly empty space, why do objects look and feel solid?

Chemist John Dalton proposed the theory that all matter and objects are made up of particles called atoms, and this is still accepted by the scientific community, almost two centuries later. Each of these atoms is each made up of an incredibly small nucleus and even smaller electrons, which move around at quite a distance from the centre.

If you imagine a table that is a billion times larger, its atoms would be the size of melons. But even so, the nucleus at the centre would still be far too small to see and so would the electrons as they dance around it. So why don’t our fingers just pass through atoms, and why doesn’t light get through the gaps?

So why does a table also feel solid? Many websites will tell you that this is due to the repulsion – that two negatively charged things must repel each other. But this is wrong, and shows you should never trust some things on the internet. It feels solid because of the dancing electrons.

If you touch the table, then the electrons from atoms in your fingers become close to the electrons in the table’s atoms. As the electrons in one atom get close enough to the nucleus of the other, the patterns of their dances change. This is because, an electron in a low energy level around one nucleus can’t do the same around the other – that slot’s already taken by one of its own electrons. The newcomer must step into an unoccupied, more energetic role. That energy has to be supplied, not by light this time but by the force from your probing finger.

So pushing just two atoms close to each other takes energy, as all their electrons need to go into unoccupied high-energy states. Trying to push all the table-atoms and finger-atoms together demands an awful lot of energy – more than your muscles can supply. You feel that, as resistance to your finger, which is why and how the table feels solid to your touch.

theconversation.com...

These are just some of the simpler things that supports what I'm saying. I won't go into space-time error correcting codes or entanglements relationship to gravity and information.

There's NO EVIDENCE that supports the notion that we must explain the universe in materialist terms. In fact, science refutes that nonsense.

a reply to: ClovenSky

People like Neo take refuge in speculative metaphysics - based on a partial knowledge of physics - and in no way shape or form respects that adage so many people respect: Ockhams Razor, which says 'do not make more assumptions than necessary'.

If the human mind wants to think about speculative things, and wants to ignore what real science has shown, this is because the self doesn't want to change itself: its happy doing what it does.

Morality, or ethics, is always in the background in human beings. The person who entertains the idea that he is "amoral", or "beyond morality", has basically hung himself to this desire to get away with anything - to pursue pleasure at any cost. This, this motivation, is the real source of why he acts: not the belief that his actions emanate from some 'amoral' realm which he will forever inhabit vis-à-vis his actions and effects upon others. This fantasy is a defensive function.

If you want to understand how you work, its first necessary to realize that your affects - your feelings - 'nudging you' this way and that way, also constitute knowledge: and a much deeper one to boot.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You haven't said anything but a bunch of gobbledy gook. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that refutes anything I'm saying.

I don't want to hear your bloviating. Everything I say I back with science. Every thing you have said is just muddled nonsense.