Re: Defending Materialism (about consciousness)

[ndrwplussine]

i do not support these amateur videos. No offence, but this type of video belongs to your small talk and debates in philosophy 101, not here.

[Brodaddy1000]

All matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration. Some say everything is matter. I say everything is vibration.

[TheAntiFascist2010]

everything is matter, however, materialism in the form of greed and consumption are not healthy to the human physique on any level. Even the word lust. Just because religions use these words doesn't mean that lust and greed for material things somehow becomes good after you stop believing in god. Also if something is a process it is still happening in your brain and your brain is matter. All brain energy exists in the physical as frequency waves. It is all matter.

[KrfNYC2]

I wasn't paying attention...I'll come back.

[seanotube85]

If you can measure energy, doesn't this suggest that it exists physically? How can something that does NOT physically exist within our physical reality affect something that DOES physically exist within our physical reality?

[lllooollnnnlloooll]

What is matter? the answer to your question is endless, the more you research the more you will find. Just my opinion, great video.

[Kasu1917]

Matter is a philosophical category denoting the external world which is given to man by his senses, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them. Matter is all that exists independently of consciousness. Whether it be atoms, electrons, quarks, loops of energy, or 11 dimensional membranes, it is still the world which exists outside of our sensations. Matter in motion = Energy = Reality.

[carnivourlocust]

@UbermenschBOB matter is a very dense expression of energy ...!

[carnivourlocust]

I totaly agree ... Material is an Illusion that is injected into this very dense sort of reality ... different dimensions, different densities! In fact there is no material as there is no brain ... Its like computer would think it exists in an material environment called the desktop and that it is powered by software and hardware and than he is trying to discover of what this soft and hardware's are made of ... but in fact he is powered by electricity which is to him, invisible yet feelable :)!!

[jalmuli]

N

A

M

A

S

T

E

...

U R MY FAV YOUNG THINKER..

[afield1986]

How can matter be process? A process of what? You can't have something from nothing.. So what creates the process of matter/Energy?

[infonomics]

Suppose we have a person from birth who is blind, deaf and without feeling. How would this person ever conceptualize a number? If he couldn't, then he needs at least one of those missing senses. Sure, one may conceptualize math after seeing it, hearing it or touching braille, but my question concerns those missing senses from birth. The relevance? Those three senses require materialism: light waves/particles, sound waves, or concrete forms. Comments please.

[carnivourlocust]

@infonomics he would accept what he experiences to be the truth and to be the only reality there is ... do you imply he has emotions or is he also withouth them? if he'd be without emotions than he has no energy and doesn't exist ... for emotions are the main part of the energy that lives or soul :) !

[4EverLoveAmbassador]

Materialism Makes Reason Impossible:

/watch?v=qRjk1oEJXSI

[poolerboy0077]

What a cute twink. ^_^

[mellowmaromi1]

Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them. Therefore, to say that such a concept can become antiquated is childish talk, a senseless repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary philosophy. - - The idea is nothing more than the material world, reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

[homer30]

materialism is a process? a process from nothing to something? invisible to visible? from nothing to a book? In that case, materialism is not just physical in a sense of objects we touch like a book. It's almost like saying my reasoning and my body is one: they are called materialism. That is not the general belief of materialism. The general belief is that materialism is physical like a book; anything other than physical is not real

[scatterbrain350]

I don't read that much philosophy, so you lost me at around 2:30, with the reference to Whitehead. But you but you speak very articulately and combine ideas well. You should work towards becoming a professor.

[MarmaladeINFP]

I realize how pointless these kinds of discussions are in that it's rare for anyone to change their minds, but I just want to make a simple point.

All of science is based on observations which are themselves based on consciousness. To speculate that matter exists without consciousness is an unverifiable hypothesis. Our only observations directly show that we are unable to separate mind and matter. Maybe this is just the limit of the human mind, but still it is the limit of all of science.

[philopathy]

I think I know what a process is. It is something like an event. And an event something like matter in motion. What I want to know is what does it mean for a process to occur but not occur in or be constituted by the motion of some substance?

[philopathy]

Question: Consciousness has a first person perspective. So if atoms are conscious in some sense, they must have this 'first person perspectivness'. But how is it that a bunch of first person perspectives come together to form one first person perspective?

[EverettsVLOG]

you argue that we dont know what matter 'consists' of, yet you go on to say that matter is not a 'substance'.

another possible contradiction is that you say that we can understand the energetic processes of things, yet how can this be? I could similarly equivocate (as you do w.r.t. substance) that we used to think of hte *process* of billard balls but now we think of the *process* of a wavefunction evolving, so clearly our notions of processes change.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I suppose my point was that matter does not consist of anything, or in other words it is not a substance. In light of the quantum revolution, it seems misleading to talk about matter as being 'made' of anything. It is energy in a constant process of becoming, certainly with features we can distinguish as various particles, but they always exist in motion and vanish when not in relationship with one another.

[EverettsVLOG]

right, but usually they are in relationship with one another. you realize there are other interpretations of the quantum mechanical formalism, its odd that you are treating your interpretation so axiomatically.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Are you familiar with David Bohm's interpretation? It saves the possibility of determinism even while granting consciousness a central role in the unfolding of reality.

watch?v=SvyD2o7w24g&feature=re­lated

[EverettsVLOG]

the bohm interpretation does not give consciousness a central role int he unfolding of reality - at least not the modern bohm interpretation i'm thinking of. however is admits to non locality. The point is that if you make an argument based upon a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics you have built -in an unevidenced dogma into your philosophy.

[0ThouArtThat0]

have you watched the interview of Bohm I linked above? I'd be curious to know you're reaction to his interpretation. As far as 'admitting' non-locality, if we take Bell's experimental findings seriously, non-local effects have been proven, no? The only remaining question concerns what the nature of matter/energy/space-time are such that non-locality is possible.

[0ThouArtThat0]

re: the central role of consciousness/perception in Bohm's thought: watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0&feature=re­lated

[TypicalEnglish]

@EverettsVLOG ah dude i knew the first comment i'd see would be quantum mechanics :p

i believe quantum mechanics should be renamed = Things humans don't fully understand or can comprehend so just say it is chance

[MrMentalflossed]

@EverettsVLOG matter is the illusion of substance through interactions of fields of energy, a solid is only slowly vibrational stable , and on up the scale as well as further down the scale,..a 2 dimential patern displayed creats the 3d space then by adding the 4th dimention of time that space is then able to react to itself, the energy fields created by the holographic object then repel other hologhraphics with fields of there own thus creating the illusion of solid matter.

[technepisteme]

Hey Matthew, thanks again for your response(s). I'll try to respond to you soon-ish, I think first I'll need to develop a more well-rounded understanding or interpretation of panexperientialism and Whitehead.

Admittedly I do think a process metaphysic, but without the panentheism, is an attractive view, at least more appealing to me than a metaphysic which only considers states of being. But this type of metaphysic (without theology) arose centuries before Whitehead, correct?

[0ThouArtThat0]

You could say the first process philosopher was Hericlitus. But back then they didn't distinguish philosophy and theology. I would not call Whitehead's discussion of God theology, however. He incorporates God into his system only as a metaphysician, not in a religious fashion. He isn't concerned with belief or faith, but with giving a coherent explanation of the cosmos.

[Bley121]

Ques: Whats the difference between human and other animals. Ans: The complexity of grabbing. Interpretation comes from meta wired connections, IMO. Though the meta connections can't be sensed upon, however, the essence of these connections, such as through the utilization of a grab, could inhibit our conscious state. Because i grab therefore there could be no material. How, so?. Nature does fluid origami.

[JJJPaxton]

you should read this article in New Scientist d ot c om:

"It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

"Each proton is made of three quarks, but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass" "...So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual."

[StevenErnest]

How will it mean all reality is virtual? Virtual in the sense of VR, not real, a simulation...?

[JJJPaxton]

The Matrix? What they mean by virtual is reality or particles popping in and out of EXISTENCE, quantum fluctuations.

Matter being and not being. One question I would ask is why is the universe fluctuating or better why is it fluctuating with such intricacy? what's driving organization?

[StevenErnest]

I think you're making an unsupportable leap. The Matrix -- virtual reality -- is a simulation. If particles are "popping in and out of existence..." how is that virtual? It's not a simulation, it's what matter is doing at a fundamental level

[JJJPaxton]

Yes... you are probably right about particles... that's just what matter is doing at a fundamental level, I found this article, google:

"Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?"

[0ThouArtThat0]

I just read the article. I'm left wondering what they might mean by 'virtual'?

[JJJPaxton]

yeah...virtual particles are those that "come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them."... I think that's the uncertainty principle... energy/matter unpredictably popping in and out of existence. However if ALL reality is really appearing and disappearing! Could we say that what's making reality pop is consciousness? Or maybe parallel universes where energy comes from and escapes to. If at the end the brain is virtual, what does that mean?

[StevenErnest]

If matter is indeed, quantum fluctuations, how do you make the leap to say that human consciousness is the cause? Based on what? That sounds like the New Age gobbledygook of "What the Bleep?"

[danbit5]

i enjoyed that matt :0 btw i noticed you never seem to grow old just a passing thought i like your videos,might as well slip a 5 star in(random:))

[MichaelJoyce78]

great job matt. I believe as well, in this "process" of materialism. fun to talk about, yes... but when I think strongly on this subject, there is a part of me that feels like, we must understand that which is (for the most part) understood and never "infer" anything. for if we do, we begin to cross over into pseudoscience (as what Carl Sagan speaks of in Demon-Haunted World). Yes?

[delerium2k]

I think evolution (cosmological, biological, technological, etc.) demonstrates that matter is a constant process. After all, all the matter that we're made of was once stardust.

[darkchocolatebrotha]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we use light to measure it because light travels faster. I watch a lot of NOVA films, and I think I saw that in one. I'm not entirely sure now, so I looked it up.

wikipedia:

"By 1995, when the top quark was observed at Fermilab, all six flavors had been observed."

and in this link it talks about the parts of a particle accelerator:

science(dot)howstuffworks(dot)­com/atom-smasher3(dot)htm

I'm pretty sure 3 or 4 have been seen and 7 are theory.

[MageSutek]

Reference to "observation" in this capacity is not literal. We cannot "see" quarks, or any other type of subatomic particles for that matter. We ascribe their existence to the energies that must be accounted for outside the spectrum of what we can measure with legitimacy in science. We see the electrons circling the nucleus, but what is all the "stuff" we cannot account for? We observe it by simply theorizing it is present. This is why Higgs would be so monumental; less theory, more evidence.

[darkchocolatebrotha]

you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know how they use...

"closed-circuit television and radiation detectors to see what happens inside the accelerator (for safety purposes) " How Stuff Works

"Detectors - devices that look at the pieces and radiation thrown out from the collision" -HSW

- if it isn't visual how do they do it?

and how come I've read that 3 of the 10 quarks have been proven to exist. cause now im just confused. :S

isn't it just particles and empty space?

[darkchocolatebrotha]

Not sure what you mean about the atomic level, because there are some subatomic particles that they know exist, from particle collision. I think there are 3 types of quarks. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know what you mean though, the only proof of this existence is sensory (sight), which comes down to communication, meaning particle energy must have intelligence.

[0ThouArtThat0]

we've not seem subatomic particles, we mathematically infer their existence based on energies released in our experiments. New experiments may require that we totally revamp our theoretical understanding of subatomic particles. It's sort of like smashing a plate in the dark and trying, based on sound alone, to figure out how many pieces it shattered into. As we refine our ability to hear, our figures will surely change.

[pungentprincess]

I like how fast everyone seems to upload videos. I feel so out of the loop. I have to quit being slow and get in on this action.

[jtmoneyky]

isn't matter made up of thought? or consciousness?

[0ThouArtThat0]

An idealist would say yes, but then you have to ask why we can't simply think ourselves through walls...

[TWITfromURANUS]

[.....there are no walls

not really

any more than there is a you

but 'you' know this

Blimey, the philosophers have been busy today,,,,,,,]

OOF!

[delerium2k]

We seem to be getting there. When the Wright brothers wanted to fly they dreamed up the airplane in their imaginations, then built it. So today, when we fly in a plane, are we not flying in an invention that was actually birthed in the human imagination?

As for walking through walls, I think when nanotechnology really takes off things like that will become a reality. Technology seems to increasingly bridge the gap between the mental and physical realms.

[Mathfails]

At a' boy Matt, go get em!

[ozjthomas]

Very interesting. The idea of spirit and matter being the same thing resonates with me.

[2bsirius]

Didn't see a link for what you're responding to...

[0ThouArtThat0]

watch?v=LX3UT2YH0AU

its in the description box as well.

[kimxxxyyy]

matter is illusion of what we think as solid & real when in true reality matter is vibrating in our limited vibrational field, ie what we limit our self's to, everything is energy vibrating at a different speeds or levels,

however we are only limited by our own minds

higher levels are achievable matter can dissolve & reappear!!! no joke...

[LimpLoser]

your hand is made of sub-atomic units ( thats true) but, its also made of cells. its also made out of fingers and a thumb.

However, its not magical energy flying through space.

[0ThouArtThat0]

space is a form of energy.

[LimpLoser]

energy is a measurement ( a mathmatical model). your hand is a real fucking hand dude. that was my point. put your hand in the fire it will fucking hurt.

[mirandansa]

/your hand is a real fucking hand dude. that was my point./

I understand your point. I think you don't understand Matt's point.

/put your hand in the fire it will fucking hurt./

Because there can be causation between what you call 'the fire' and 'your hand', yes. What exactly is the basis of that causation? What is the fundamental form of the atomic/sub-atomic relationships?

[LimpLoser]

mirandaansa: " what is the basis of that causation?"

electrical impulses travel up the burnt hand to the spinal cord, up into the brain, where the electrical impulses are translated into pain.

an electrical current is made of electrons. these electrons are generated through friction at the synapses of nerve cells. they travel along the dendron to another nerve cell ( and so the message is passed along ).

[mirandansa]

/electrical impulses travel up the burnt hand to the spinal cord, up into the brain, where the electrical impulses are translated into pain./

Hence 'process'. Matter or its phenomenon is not possible without interrelational processes. Atoms are not possible without the creative process of constantly entering/orbiting/leaving electrons. Electrons themselves are a collective manifestation of processes, aren't they?

[LimpLoser]

Being made of material its hard not to defend it?