[jerf]

You're repeating a classic human error.

    1. Hmm, there seems to be a phenomenon here. Let's call it X.
    2. Hmm, I think I must be caused by Y.
    3. Ah, here's some proof that Y is not the cause of X.
    4. X DOESN'T EXIST!

I do not understand the appeal of the argument, it's completely illogical, but it's very popular. But, what you proved is that your old conception of matter is wrong. You have not proved that there is no such thing as matter. The rational answer is to update your understanding of X and move on, not get stuck on your first thought and never move on ever again.

Still, you are in good company. This is a staggeringly common logic failure in the philosophical arena.

What I call matter does exist, to within the limits of our observation... you see, I've updated my understanding in the light of the evidence. So all the arguments you have marshaled against the old definition don't affect me at all, and trying to convince me that I really mean some other definition so that you can salvage your arguments is a waste of time. I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them.

[bkst]

>I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them.

I've never spoken to you in my life.

The definition of materialism has been established since 450 BC. It has nothing to do with you.

You can't say that 1=0 just because you define it that way. You have to actually prove that they're the same.

Using your tactic I can prove unicorns exist by redefining unicorns to not have horns. Under my new definition of unicorns, unicorns exist, and I'm going to go around shouting from the rooftop that unicorns exist and I've proved they exist. Anyone who tells me that unicorns don't exist is guilty of failing to recognize my private definition of unicorns. But this argument is absurd, just as your argument that matter exists because you have redefined matter in a new way that is incompatible with the previous definition of matter is absurd.

If your new definition of matter is incompatible with your old definition of matter, then why are you using the same word? It's not matter. It's something else. So use a new word. It's not a unicorn, it's a horse--something that has already been claimed to exist by the philosophers of horses.

You can't say that you've refuted the philosophy of horses and proved that only unicorns exist by redefining unicorns to not have any horns and then pointing at horses as proof of your unicorn theory. This is how crazy materialists sound. Completely illogical.

Materialists in 2015 are going to barns and pointing at horses to prove that unicorns exist, because they've redefined unicorns to now be without a horn. It would be funny if it wasn't so popular.

Berkeley didn't refute Jerf-Materialism. I was arguing against normal materialism, which holds that all things are matter, and that matter is a deterministic, solid, stable, extended substance that has mass, takes up space, is made up of smaller bits of matter, has an exclusion principle with the space that it takes up, interacts with neighboring matter through contact, and so on. This is still what most people think of as matter. Even the people who discovered the empirical evidence that refutes the existence of matter still claim to believe in matter, it's just odd.

Guess what guys! If it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't talk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck... it's NOT a duck!

And your private language is not relevant to this discussion.

[alexhill]

I'm not the parent but I'll stop considering myself a "materialist" then. I'm not wedded to the term. What should I call myself? A physicalist?

I'll try to describe the position that I (and I think most of the people you're debating with here) hold, without leaving too many terms undefined.

There exist reliably measurable external, non-mental, things. Ok, the physicalist says, consciousness does not arise from little material billiard balls bumping into one another. We have a more complex picture now of the composition of the external world, and so consciousness arises from that. This position does not rely on determinism; it can comfortably coexist with the kind of structured randomness seen in quantum physics.

It also doesn't logically exclude dualism, but as far as we know, only permits a kind of one-way dualism where some conscious substance exists as a consequent but not a cause of physical processes. Put another way, I don't believe we have discovered anything about the external world that requires the kind of explanation that consciousness can provide.

I understand your annoyance – I feel the same way about people who say they aren't "atheist", then go on to describe their textbook atheist beliefs. Though I end up doing it more than I'd like, it doesn't help to reprimand those people for what I see as a misuse of words, any more than you calling people "completely illogical" helps here. Arriving at different conclusions based on different definitions of terms is entirely logical. It's more constructive to find common ground in what people mean than to argue about definitions.

[bkst]

Most human beings don't consider themselves logical. 80%+ of people consider their most meaningful and important beliefs to be faith based.

So I have no problem with those people claiming to believe in matter. It's the materialists who also claim to be rational that make no sense.

It's nice that you aren't wedded to the ancient and refuted superstition that is tied to the word "materialism". But you are mistaken if you think your peers aren't... most self-proclaimed materialists, if asked to describe their beliefs, will describe them inline with the classic Newtonian or Cartesian formulation of matter. They will say the world is deterministic, stable, extended, takes up space, etc.

Most self-proclaimed atheists claim to be materialists and profess a belief in this old type of materialism. Very few of them will say they aren't wedded to the word like you do. I completely respect your rejection of the word--it shows me that you are a logical person who has developed a more sophisticated worldview than the simple materialism that most non-theists still claim is true.

[alexhill]

> most self-proclaimed materialists, if asked to describe their beliefs, will describe them inline with the classic Newtonian or Cartesian formulation of matter.

I suspect many self-proclaimed materialists might do that, but more likely in an imprecise expression of vague support for a scientific worldview that they haven't learned or thought about too much than in an active rejection of established principles of quantum physics.

I'm just the same; I don't pretend to have a deep and detailed understanding of quantum physics, but I accept it as true because I believe at least that an internally consistent external world exists and a global conspiracy of physicists doesn't. If you quizzed me, at some level of detail I'd have to start guessing. My incorrect guesses shouldn't be mistaken for intentional rejection of established theories.

[bkst]

>because I believe at least that an internally consistent external world exists and a global conspiracy of physicists doesn't.

The assertion that the world must be internally consistent is quintessential rationalism, not materialism or empiricism at all. Science's core value is empiricism, NOT rationalism. Empiricism and rationalism are at odds with one another and make incompatible claims.

>I'm just the same; I don't pretend to have a deep and detailed understanding of quantum physics, but I accept it as true because I believe at least that an internally consistent external world exists and a global conspiracy of physicists doesn't. If you quizzed me, at some level of detail I'd have to start guessing. My incorrect guesses shouldn't be mistaken for intentional rejection of established theories.

This is one of the weakest epistemic arguments I've ever heard. But also very honest.

You're basically saying that your central ontological conviction is that a group of humans called physicists are the ontological authorities, but you can't actually tell us what ontology it is that those authorities advocate, but whatever it is, you're sure they're right and their opponents are wrong.

This is a brutally honest admission: most fans of science have no idea what science is actually saying and couldn't survive a brief cross-examination of their "scientific" worldview. They would keep getting tripped up and go back to "I agree with what Joe says, and even though I can't explain what it is that Joe says, I am sure he is right and you are wrong, and I'm sure that Joe would have great arguments to defeat you with."

Of course, this is an illogical argument and completely fails. If you can't describe the position of the authority (PoA) that you trust in, then you can't compare the position of the authority (PoA) to the position of others (PoO).

If you don't know PoA, then you don't know that PoO is not equal to PoA. You can't, on your own, determine if PoA == PoO or if PoA != PoO. Since you can't make this comparison, you can't make any argument at all and can't make any meaningful statements about PoO. You can't even claim that someone's argument conflicts with your authority's argument, because it's impossible to know that PoA != PoO when you don't know what PoA is.

The only epistemic position you are left with is to robotically repeat the profession of the faith:

"There is no truth but physics and physicists are that truth's prophets."

Most self-proclaimed atheists are in the same boat as you, but far less aware of their ignorance of their own doctrines.

Most atheists totally fail to articulate an internally consistent scientism, and also fail to articulate a scientism that is compatible with the scientism that physicists articulate.

Again and again they fall back on "the prophet is right, but I don't know what he is right about."

Their ontology and epistemology is a "I'll believe what they're believing" kind of finger-pointing.

So now you see why philosophers like me think "New Atheists" are anti-intellectuals--and why we have criticized New Atheists of having the same religious ignorance and fervor that is common among Christians. To rationalists, Christians and New Atheists look like two authority-based religions with different prophets.

[alexhill]

Interesting.

> The assertion that the world must be internally consistent is quintessential rationalism, not materialism or empiricism at all. Science's core value is empiricism, NOT rationalism.

I don't assert that the world must be internally consistent. I merely believe that it is, for the entirely boring reason that there's a mountain of evidence that seems to say so. Empiricism may be the core value of science, but I think it's fair to say the scientific method also assumes the world to be consistent – that's the property that makes it worth hypothesising about.

If the external world isn't consistent, we will at some point run into some phenomenon that the scientific method simply can't accommodate, and there'll be no way to know when that's happened. Maybe it's happened already and consciousness is that problem. In any case, overall I think that puts me on the empiricist side of the fence, right?

> This is one of the weakest epistemic arguments I've ever heard. But also very honest.

> If you can't describe the position of the authority (PoA) that you trust in

> most fans of science have no idea what science is actually saying and couldn't survive a brief cross-examination of their "scientific" worldview

I do okay, but literally nobody could survive a brief cross-examination of their "scientific" worldview if you pick the right questions. I believe that the world exists outside my mind, so I have to accept that there are truths about the world that I don't know. All I'm saying is that I believe that other people know more of them than I do.

You have used quantum physics to justify your position elsewhere in this thread, so I take it you can justify this kind of belief-delegation as well.

> So now you see why philosophers like me think "New Atheists" are anti-intellectuals ... having the same religious ignorance and fervor that is common among Christians.

This is only superficially true. The whole "because science!" meme is annoying and a bit cultish. But although you've clearly thought about it in much more detail, the same logic that allows you to use quantum physics to support your arguments is what affords these people their beliefs. Even the most unthinking atheists grasp the structural difference between religious faith and so-called faith in science, that "God" is an empty expression whereas "Max Planck" refers to a human being not unlike themselves, etc.

(My source of frustration is that many people on the science train don't apply the mindset to themselves at all – generally giving their personal perceptions and intuitions, particular concerning causal relationships, far more weight than can be justified.)

[bobdathinker]

Physicalism grew out of materialism with the success of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished.

[jerf]

"And your private language is not relevant to this discussion."

Since you've been trying to claim the right to define matter for all of us, and then philosophically force conclusions based on those definitions down our throats over our objections about how those aren't our definitions, it rather is.

Tu quoque. Your post is its own refutation. You can't insist on being the only person allowed to play definition games, and that everyone else is doing it wrong if they try because you know the definitions they are secretly using... or, rather, you can, but don't expect me to take you seriously as a result. Your thinking here is so solipsistic you appear to be just barely aware that there are other opinions, but you are not capable of engaging with them, only shouting at them to "shut up!" and then get back to the point you're trying to make regardless.

[bkst]

I'm not solipsistic at all... I'm using the socially established definition. I'm engaging in the 2500 year old tradition and usage of the word. I'm using the word in the same way it was used by Thales, Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Locke, and all scientists before the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and most scientists still today.

I'm using the word in the same way that most non-physicists still use it--where for instance biologists in crafting their theories assume that lifeforms obey classical materialist principles despite the findings of quantum physics that those principles are wrong.

You can't claim that I invented the definition of materialism anymore than you can claim that I invented 1+1=2.