What's wrong with Materialism?

>>9702693
Nothing is objectively wrong about anything

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

I have no idea what this means

>>9702698
I guess he is talking about physicalism, the belief that only the physical world exists.

Problem with this interpretation of the world is it is too reductionist. Sure, everything can be reduced down to individual particles, but then it ceases to be what it originally was, and becomes only mere particles.

>>9702695
OP asked what's wrong with materialism, not what's "objectively" wrong with it.

>>9702693
/lit/ - literature

take your cod-philosophical religious fucknuttery to /his/ and never darken this door again

>>9702693
The absence of a cause for the big bang and the hard problen of conciousness, mainly.

Also, and above all else
>>9702715

'material' isn't real on the smallest level

>>9702693

It hasn't even defined Matter and it's wrong.

>>9702721
>big bang and the hard problen of conciousness
Why do they need an immaterial cause?

>>9702721
>hard problen of conciousness
not a thing, stop shilling - even if it were why would you go so far as to assume the immaterial, that's a pretty big leap

>cause for the big bang
So that automatically makes it immaterial?

>what's wrong with worshipping a false god

>>9702748
time to wake up neo, see you on the next notch of the spiral ;)

>>9702693
Mary learns what red is.

Its an abstraction that people somehow think is more real than their sense perceptions. If you understand that your sense perceptions are logically prior to any measurements taken through them, and any mathematical model built with those measurements, you understand the problem with materialism.

>>9702693
>>>/sci/9006259

It's disproven by QM, since it doesn't allow for consciousness, which is seemingly integral to QM measurements.

>>9704739
Define "logically prior"

>>9704744
>consciousness, which is seemingly integral to QM measurements.
It is not. This is an idealist mystification

>>9704751
Can you give me some info or links? I'm interested in your stance.

>>9704746
"Takes place before"
"Ontologically higher"
"Is a precondition of"

Materialism can't account for the existence of morality and it can't say anything about why we exist rather than not. The materialist world view is also self refuting because it can't defend its own position as being true -- if the mind is just chemical and biological processes then there's no free will. We're just programmed to think the things we do and there's no good reason for ever trying to change somebody else's minds. My brain is programmed to think the things I it does and yours is programmed to think the thinks that it does, end of story.

>>9704788

You think you're so smart, but the new atheist position on the origin of morality makes better sense than all heretofore existing models of morality in that it subsumes them. The rest of your complaint are various confused thoughts on functionalism.

Materialism is readily capable of accounting for morality in the following way: stuff clumps into animals. some animals get so advanced that they are capable of such-and-such mental states (imagination, foresight). This gives rise to the variations on the theme of the golden rule which comprise the bulk of ideas and thoughts having to do with morality. the It is no knock on this correct view that it is "incomplete".

The best available proof of the validity of this view is that it accords with experience. Otherwise you are obliged to appeal to some religion, which as I said are subsumed in the above. Notice that you and other anons ITT instinctively take a "scientistic" (which, incidentally, is generally correct) tack on all this. You accept the frame yet purport to reject it, for example.

>>9704739

Read Descartes. It is quite right to distrust one's own sense perceptions.

Now, you could validly reply by stating that "the fact that he /saw/, or thought he saw, a watery mirage in the desert is still /real/, still part of the fabric of reality/, so that the non-existence of the oasis is no disproof of the reality of his perception.", or something to that effect. But on the one hand, the point is that a perception /and interpretation/ need not be what is present /in the world/. We constantly go to sleep and wake up again, ready to take the world as it comes. But we personally can't account for most of the interval of our sleep. And yet an exterior consensus exists which overwhelmingly militates against fancies. It consists precisely of the world itself, and the reports of others.

>>9702709

When a philosophical question is put, this is an invitation to respondents to take the thing and run with it where they will.

>>9704788
>Materialism can't account for the existence of morality
social construct/meme

>it can't say anything about why we exist rather than not.
We can go back as far as the Big Bang atm.

>The materialist world view is also self refuting because it can't defend its own position as being true -- if the mind is just chemical and biological processes then there's no free will.
Free will not existing in no way disproves materialism.

>We're just programmed to think the things we do and there's no good reason for ever trying to change somebody else's minds.
The brain isn't "programmed" to think a certain way rather thought is determined by biological and external causes. Someone attempting to change your mind would be an external cause.

>>9705113
Mirages and sleep pose no problem at all. You can dispute whether the content of perception alignes with any given abstraction, but you cannot dispute the fact of perception. And it is this fact of perception that all measurements must appeal to in order to build any model in the first place. Youve reified your model, you think were living in some computer game world where it is possible in principle to have a disembodied, third person camera floating around. This requires putting the model before the perception, but theres no basis for that.

>>9702693
Materialism is a form of idealism.

>>9704788
>morality
is instincts and culture.

>why we exist rather than not
because there is no "why", it is as it is. Just because you're an animal that needs purposes and goals, doesn't mean existence needs to hold them too and align them to your view. Try step back from the inherent animal, at least a little bit.

>The materialist world view is also self refuting because it can't defend its own position as being true -- if the mind is just chemical and biological processes then there's no free will. We're just programmed to think the things we do and there's no good reason for ever trying to change somebody else's minds. My brain is programmed to think the things I it does and yours is programmed to think the thinks that it does, end of story.
That's so fucking retarded. This has to be a shitpost. Literally all of it is blatantly false.

File: 1474789137510.png (538KB, 901x903px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 901x903px

>>9702693
it is existentialism, like idealism. move from existence to experience, where everything is an activity and result form an activity, not some substance that some autist chooses to qualify as matter or mind.

>>9706005
>>9705137

You know the top minds are on it when they start breaking down your post with greentext.