Seasons

Before we criticize "materialism", we should perhaps define it clearly. In the past, many self-styled "materialists" defined materialism as the view that everything was some aspect of matter in motion. This view would be refuted by Electromagnetism, since the magnetic field exists but is not made of matter (does that make it 'spiritual'?).

Interzone wrote:

I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.

Then you should bet your money on reductionistic materialism, since this is a monist position. If mind can be reduced to matter, then there is no justification for psychophysical dualism.

Interzone--thanks. I kind of realized that after my rant, but also after the edit/delete option was gone (I looked up the term I was fuzzy on after ranting, never said I was smart). I have a high sensitivity "conclusive proof" and "What the Bleep" reasoning though, and you caught me on a bad day. (Ok bad week).

I apologize. I do kind of hope for a Theory of Everything. I would be more elegant.

evil never leaves a number. It's not hard to find, it's in the news every day. Evil never admits to being evil, it is always "for your own good, the greater good, good of society" etc.
the spooky effect, uncertainty principal To me just show the wonderful sense of humor God gave the universe. Just when man thinks he has "truth" nailed down, there is a bellowing cosmic voice going "Naaa naaa, gotcha"

Bev, no need to apologize! I was trying to clarify my own position, rather than "criticize" you. It is true that I think some of those QF mysteries to be far deeper, and the problems a lot more serious, than you apparently believe them to be, but that's not all that important. I couldn't even say that I'm right, or that you're wrong, anyway, but we can always exchange opinions 'n' points of view, and that's what counts.

Irina, materialism, including radical forms such as reductionism, does not imply that everything is "some aspect of matter in motion", but, rather, that everything has a material cause, and can be quantified, measured and expressed in exact terms, i.e. no need to evoke "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and such, in order to explain a phenomenon. Physical forces and fields meet this requirement and are an integral part of material(ist) Universe.

As for me betting my money on a monist position, including the RM, you got me there I muddled my statement so badly, I can't blame anyone, except the sudden disappearance of Edit/ Delete button... I should have said simply:

a position that transcends any either-or dichotomy

that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on. We'll have to accept that neither of these entities is fundamental - they are but different aspects of a deeper underlying principle. This principle might in turn be a material one, or not; it may lead to a monist position, or not - we don't know. It won't be the final truth, last answer to answer all questions, though - I'm with Prob on this one: we won't ever be able to quite "nail it down". What I do think, however, is that this new paradigm will be based on a different view of what is called "consciousness". The currently predominant materialist view says that consciousness is a phenomenon associated with highly evolved matter. My hunch is that consciousness is more fundamental property of nature, world, universe, call it what you want... all that is. This is in my view far more important novelty that new paradigm will bring about, not a resolution of old "either-or" questions.

Interzone:

But what is a material cause? Is it matter in motion? I would think that a state of the electromagnetic field in some region could be a 'material' cause in the everyday sense of the word, although an electromagnetic field is not 'material' in the sense of being matter. For that matter, what is matter (does it matter? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself)?

You appear to contrast "material" with "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and the like. Well, I agree that such terms don't shed a lot of light. But does "material" then just mean "natural", "effable", and "explicable"?

To focus on the last one: many theories that might seem very tough-minded and well-confirmed nevertheless have an inexplicable component. Quantum Mechanics says that all these things happen because of Shroedinger's equation and so on, but why is Schroedinger's equation the right one? Why not some other equation? QM can't say why S's equation is the right one, only that it is.

You write:

that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on.

This reminds me of Russell's "Neutral Monism". Of course, he had a specific kind of neutral monism in mind, you are not entitled to see it the same way.

Well, actually... in what sense is there more than one kind of monist theory? Let's say that Thales says, "All is water" (what he actually said was more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argument...) and Empedocles says, "All is air" (likewise). At first sight they appear to disagree. But Thales has to say that air is water, and Empedocles has to say that water is air. So is their disagreement just terminological? Each of them is saying that there is one fundamental substance of which everything is a mode. You could call it "belly-button lint" if you want.

If I were to come up with a fundamental ontology it would be something like this:

1. Spacetime.
2. Probabilities.
3. Causal parameters (like mass, charge, etc.) that inhabit spacetime, and figure (along with spacetime) in the causal laws.
4. Causal laws (which may be probabilistic).

This may appear to be 'tetristic' rather than monistic, but as you can see, the four things are involved with one another. There is really just one thing, an active substance that evolves according to its own laws.

Interzone, I do think there are deeper mysteries but that science (in the "hard science" sense) is not necessarily he best tool to use in investigating these questions. I also think that questions raised by science can eventually be answered by science (as in a rational if complex explanation that can predict future outcomes based on known factors). It's a question of what level of explaination you are looking for. Those who adhere to a materialist view will eventually be able to explain their data in ways that fit the framework they set up. That may not be the only way to look at the subject, but it will be one way to look at it. If those are the tools you use, that is the result you get.

This ties into Irina's comments on the nature of the questions asked. The what and how is best left to the realms of science. The why may take you in other directions. It's when people claim they have the answer to "why" based on science that things become mixed up.

Personally I like a Gestalt/holistic approach to most things, because I do think the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. The conscious universe idea is interesting, but I am not sure if I fully buy into it at this time. Religiously I am a "book store Buddhist" but I am not sure about the concept of soul or reincarnation and the like. I haven't ruled it out either. I just don't know. The same goes for meta consciousness, divine creator(s), and god(s). It's an interesting question, but at the risk of TMI, when I was younger I could reproduce and surpass any subjective experience of the divine (or state I can now reach in meditation) with the right drugs (or the wrong ones, as drug as very bad and illegal).I could meet god or be god, but at the end of the day, it was a biochemical reaction and the awareness most likely ended with my own thoughts since the people I felt connected to were busy looking at their hands and hiding from aliens.

Irina, what I mean by "material cause" is simply what Aristotle, the "inventor" of MC concept, said - Material cause [is] "that from which [...] a thing comes to be [...] the bronze and silver, and their genera, are causes of the statute and the bowl" (emphases are mine)

Electrons in motion, then, qualify as material cause, and so does "a state of the electromagnetic field in some region". Note that the above definition does not require, or even imply, that material causes themselves be matter(ial). Quite to the contrary, Aristotle, for one, specifically excludes matter as a candidate for what he calls "substance", and also, "essence".

What science does, it reduces that from which a thing comes to be to some aspect of matter in motion. The reductionist materialism cuts Aristotle short, and assumes that matter is indeed essence of all things.

So, I would say, materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the world does not imply that everything is an aspect of matter in motion. The reductionis materialists, actual people, the scientists who consider materialism to be the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else has to be explained, they do indeed imply that, but they cannot actually prove it, not by their own standards of what constitutes a scientific proof. They all relay on some yet to come Theory Of Everything.

Now, what is matter, if it still matters... well, that's a good question. Perhaps something for scientists and proponents of science to answer..? I'm neither. What I'm trying to do is to clarify some basic categories in order to expose shortcomings of science, in the context of it's attempts to (re)position itself in the society today, with Richard Dawkins, social (neo)Darwinism, and such in mind. How about that

I like good old Thales, and pre-Socratic philosophy in general. You know, when they figured the quarks out, they should have called them Fire, Earth, Water and Air, instead of colors, and whatever else they call them, poor quarks... We would be better off that way, in terms of overall conceptual understanding of the world... Yes, in essence, their disagreement was "just terminological", I think... I'll leave Schroedinger out of equation tonight, gotta go to sleep.

Bev, I'll come back to you, need time to think things through, this is a very good forum. Right now, have you read Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki? Beautiful book!

p.s.
TMI == Tarnishing My Image

TY Interzone--I have not read that but I will look for it. Though I have read a little Zen, I tend to read more from people like Pema Chodron or things that were given to me as photocopied handouts from my old yantra class (Tebtian yoga). I have also got some Jack Cornfield and Alan Watts but I think I mostly follow "The New Buddhism" or westernized versions of a eclectic variations of buddhist teachings.

BTW, I meant TMI as the standard warning that I may share more than you want to know--but your version works (or it would, if I had an image to tarnish here).

Bev: I agree -- Buddhism without the reincarnation doctrine would be easier to sympathize with.