Monism, the belief that there is only one metaphysical reality, is widely held by contemporary philosophers. This was not always the case. Up until the enlightenment, dualism, the idea that there are two metaphysical domains, the natural and the supernatural, held sway. Science (aka methodological naturalism) as a form of monism, has been instrumental in debunking the supernatural. Philosophical naturalism, another form of monism, has also provided powerful arguments against dualism.

I'm not sure if a strict philosophical naturalism is popular with the American public. Most American are religious to the extent that they believe in a supernatural "higher power." This would seem to put them in the dualist camp although their dualism seems very restricted -- ie. yes to god and angels but no to fairies, pixes, unicorns or magic.

There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms and that nature has also an abstract part, not only the concrete one, so why do philosophers like Harari, who simply ignore obvious facts and produce so much aberration are so popular nowadays? I don't want this to be a topic about denying or defending materialism, but rather the reasons behind its popularity. — Eugen

Probably because its adherents have figured out that insisting on imagined things is not a compelling argument for believing in them. When faced with one philosophy that explains nothing and concerns nothing apparently real, and another whose explanatory power is good enough to make it accurately predictive in the real world, spotting the fake isn't hard.

materialism and scientific determinism (~Fate or determinism) are really two different subjects.

I do reject materialism in the sense that some of the 11 forms of pan-psychism are quite plausible. Plato's version of pan-psychism is also fairly plausible.

As for fate, i feel people very often reject determinism because they want to feel superior to the guy who effed up his/her life. I believe embracing determinism allows us to live and let live. That being said if we do XYZ we should expect negative consequences to some extent. Even the most "sanctified" people are going to have negative reaction simply because to some extent or to the complete extent we are all robots.

The way i summarize my belief in pan-psychism and scientific determinism is that we are all figments of God's imagination. If he plays a scenario out in his head which includes particle physics (like a business planner or war planner), that scenario happens in reality and also it happens in his head.

We have to put up with his crap because he has nothing better to do than play out scenarios in his head. He is essentially alone and "we" are just along for the ride.

There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms — Eugen

To get a more meaningful answer, I think we need a more meaningful question. In pursuit of this, can you explain why it's obvious to you that there's more to us than a bunch of atoms?

nature has also an abstract part — Eugen

This seems to imply your picture of materialism rejects the abstract... is that the case and, if so, could you explain your impression of materialism?

To get a more meaningful answer, I think we need a more meaningful question. In pursuit of this, can you explain why it's obvious to you that there's more to us than a bunch of atoms? — InPitzotl

I have intelligence, thoughts, purposes, moral values, intentions, perception, feelings, and maybe a soul. In the worst case, I have an illusion that I possess all of these. All of them are immaterial.

This seems to imply your picture of materialism rejects the abstract... is that the case and, if so, could you explain your impression of materialism? — InPitzotl

Materialism the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. There's nothing abstract in this. Actually, there's nothing abstract in the name of materialism and in my view is just a philosophical current that claims to identify itself with pure science, but in reality is just a poor excuse to disprove God.

Probably because its adherents have figured out that insisting on imagined things is not a compelling argument for believing in them. When faced with one philosophy that explains nothing and concerns nothing apparently real, and another whose explanatory power is good enough to make it accurately predictive in the real world, spotting the fake isn't hard. — Kenosha Kid

Materialism did not invent, but appropriated all the elements of science that do not actually belong to it and denies absolutely everything that science cannot prove. Materialism is not science, it is a philosophical current that self-identifies with science and claims that science can prove absolutely everything (a completely unscientific statement) and that everything that cannot be proved does not exist. And that leads to gross aberrations.

Monism, the belief that there is only one metaphysical reality, is widely held by contemporary philosophers. This was not always the case. Up until the enlightenment, dualism, the idea that there are two metaphysical domains, the natural and the supernatural, held sway. Science (aka methodological naturalism) as a form of monism, has been instrumental in debunking the supernatural. Philosophical naturalism, another form of monism, has also provided powerful arguments against dualism.

I'm not sure if a strict philosophical naturalism is popular with the American public. Most American are religious to the extent that they believe in a supernatural "higher power." This would seem to put them in the dualist camp although their dualism seems very restricted -- ie. yes to god and angels but no to fairies, pixes, unicorns or magic. — elphidium55

You confirm my belief: materialists are just atheists whose basic purpose is not science itself, but using science for disproving God. Why did you say dualism is about supernatural? I don't believe perception is supernatural, but I do believe the core of it is abstract and non-material.

There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms — Eugen

Obvious to you perhaps. Why assume this must be obvious to everyone else as well?

You do not have thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intelligence or imagination? Are they material? Do you believe in laws of nature? Are they material?

Materialism did not invent, but appropriated all the elements of science that do not actually belong to it and denies absolutely everything that science cannot prove. — Eugen

But that isn't relevant. You are asking why materialism is popular today. The observation that dualist philosophy is useless and under-defined, while materialistic science is useful and meaningful, is sufficient, whichever one most influenced the other.

Not all scientists are materialists, and its interesting that, like in philosophy, the necessity of more than matter and energy to explain things like mind always comes down to taste. Everything that has been usefully and meaningfully explained has been explained materialistically. That is, dualism depends not on its power to describe, its own internal logic, or even that it defines its terms, rather dualism depends always on ignorance. If and when consciousness is fully understood materialistically, the effect on dualism will be to either insist on some new, mystical, ill-defined component that isn't evident, or to just stop mentioning consciousness when insisting that not everything is material and therefore materialism fails.

For some, this is attractive, that ignorance is seen as a gateway to introduce magical things: the God of the gaps, or some dualism of the gaps. I think for an increasing number of people, such scramblings reek of desperation. It's certainly not a compelling argument. I'd like to hear a genuinely compelling argument for dualism. As far as I've seen, they've always been assertions of taste, based on ignorance, based on personal anecdote, or contingent on the existence of hypothetical and often intrinsically contradictory things like p-zombies.

he observation that dualist philosophy is useless and under-defined, — Kenosha Kid

- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right.

Everything that has been usefully and meaningfully explained has been explained materialistically. — Kenosha Kid

- Science, religion, or magic explain everything as well, I don't see the difference. Materialism is not science, it is just a belief that science is 100% materialist and that science can prove anything. Unfortunately for materialism, it hasn't been capable to prove that. Moreover, it is against the principle of science to argue everything is demonstrable through science.

dualism depends always on ignorance. — Kenosha Kid

- why are you keep bringing up dualism in this debate? If dualism says black magic is true and not everything is material, it doesn't mean it is 100% false just because it said black magic exists. Same goes for materialism, I truly believe it has lots of truth in it, the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so, but instead insists on the fact they're right.

If and when consciousness is fully understood materialistically, the effect on dualism will be to either insist on some new, mystical, ill-defined component that isn't evident, or to just stop mentioning consciousness when insisting that not everything is material and therefore materialism fails. — Kenosha Kid

- science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things, because the perception itself, the thought itself or even the notion of ''feeling good'' itself aren't material and it's silly to believe that (materialism thinks that, not science). Even if science will go into the deep abstract, materialism will be only scientifically denied, because science will show that there are some non-material aspects in this Universe.

I'd like to hear a genuinely compelling argument for dualism. — Kenosha Kid

I'd like to hear a genuine argument that only what we can see and physically measure exists, or that everything non-material must be an illusion, and that illusion is also material.

- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right. — Eugen

Sure, there could be an immaterial monism, a tri-ism, a quadism... Whether materialism is likely right must be assessed on its own terms.

the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so — Eugen

You will find that with anything. Proof is never forthcoming. One cannot disprove a fictitious, undetectable thing and therefore one cannot prove the absence of such a thing. When nature appears inconsistent with materialism, reasonable people will have to look to other than matter to explain it. Reasonable people have no problem with this. They do have a problem with insisting that one must believe in vague, malleable, or undefined things that cannot be proven or disproven.

science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things — Eugen

Yes it will, if the core of these things is found to be a material system (which it almost certainly will be). You are making the argument based on ignorance I described above: an anti-materialism of the gaps. You are seeking refuge for anti-materialism not in the materialist interpretation of explained things, but in the lack of materialist explanation for as-yet-unexplained things. It's kind of ironic, really, since it recognises materialism as the explainer. A more compelling argument might be for why a materialist interpretation of an explained thing must be wrong, which typically takes us into taste. If you can see why these sorts of arguments might be unattractive to people, you can deduce the answer to your question "Why is materialism so popular?"

I'd like to hear a genuine argument that only what we can see and physically measure exists — Eugen

Because the universe behaves as if it were so, and because, until it behaves otherwise, the assumption of additional degrees of freedom in the universe is unjustified, unfalsifiable, arbitrary, and meaningless. This is not a proof that only matter exists, but rather a reason why the assumption is valid. The popularity of materialism does not depend on its being proven.

You will find that with anything. — Kenosha Kid

- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. All I have heard so far was that matter clearly exists, but the point wasn't that, the point was to hear that matter is all that exists.

Yes it will, if the core of these things is found to be a material system (which it almost certainly will be). — Kenosha Kid

- so in your opinion, perception, or even the laws of nature are all fundamentally material. I just can't wait for those irrefutable proofs. But again, not to show me that thought produces a material effect, like an electric impulse, but that thought itself is material. Not to mention perception which is totally subjective an abstract. Again, I just can't wait to see these proofs.

Because the universe behaves as if it were so, and because, until it behaves otherwise, the assumption of additional degrees of freedom in the universe is unjustified, unfalsifiable, arbitrary, and meaningless. — Kenosha Kid

- well, there aren't many elements that have purpose in this universe, but the reality shows that some of them have. I don't see how a bunch of atoms with 0 purpose have purpose. 0+0+0+........+0 = 0. This goes fairly well with the rest as well (free will, thoughts, maybe even soul).

This is not a proof that only matter exists, but rather a reason why the assumption is valid. The popularity of materialism does not depend on its being proven. — Kenosha Kid

- for a current that claims itself to be the same with science, this is very unscientific.

It's kind of ironic, really, since it recognises materialism as the explainer. — Kenosha Kid

Could you be more specific about this statement? Science is science, it does not recognize philosophical notion as its basis. It's the same as saying religion is at the base of science, and you wouldn't be far from the truth if you said that.

You are seeking refuge for anti-materialism not in the materialist interpretation of explained things, but in the lack of materialist explanation for as-yet-unexplained things — Kenosha Kid

Seeking refuge from something silly that denies all my obvious perceptions, feelings ang pure logic? This is the old excuse of materialists when they have no arguments, they accuse others of being too weak or stupid for accepting the reality. Again, very unscientific.

It gets really crazy though when you think that mass and therefore matter, is just a property of a particular set of fields of elementary particles. So materialism is just one aspect of monism. The quest for a vindication of monism is the scientific search for a unified theory of gravitational and quantum fields. But to believe that our consciousness does not ultimately consist of these energy fields, would be a quite unsubstantiable view of the natural reality.

As Noam Chomsky suggests, what if those fields and molecules have a sort of counsciousness? After all, a combination of elements create consciousness, therefore the consciousness properties are there, at the base of everything. I truly believe materilists are very afraid of this.

Chomskyan panpsychism (which I subscribe to too) is still physicalist. It just says that physical stuff all has a first-person perspective, not that there exists non-physical stuff.

- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. — Eugen

A good argument to me is the absence of any posited immaterial realm that makes any difference. A more thorough argument might go like this:

If an immaterial component of the universe exists, it must either interact with the material component or not.

If it interacts, then there exists some coupling between the material and immaterial worlds, and the material world must have some property such that this coupling is possible.

The success of science depends on the material world behaving in a predictable, deterministic or probabilistic way such that any effect in the material world can be understood to have a material cause, irrespective of whether it has a material or immaterial mediator.

Whether that mediator is material or immaterial, we can construct a theoretical model of it and give it a name, such as the "Piggs field", and use this model to make predictions of mediated material effects from material causes. If the model is good, then belief in something in nature, whether material or immaterial, corresponding to that model is justified.

If the Pigg's field, or whatever we called it, helps to explain the nature of the material world, it is by definition a physical thing, that is, it falls under the definition of the physical or material universe.

If the immaterial world does not mediate cause and effect within the material world then, whether it exists or not, belief in it is unjustified.

Materialism, as in belief in no immaterial worlds, is then justified.

A good argument to me is the absence of any posited immaterial realm that makes any difference. — Kenosha Kid

- 0 evidence for it, tons against.

The success of science depends on the material world behaving in a predictable, deterministic or probabilistic way — Kenosha Kid

- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything.
Science looks at the brain and say there's matter acting as an effect of a sort of an informational entity or something that science cannot grasp yet. Materialism look at the brain and say there's matter acting and nothing else exists simply because science can't explain it. That's the fundamental error of materialism. Science doesn't have to be 100% successful. I am not saying it can't be 100% successful, but that will be the case only when it will explain everything abstract or deny the abstract irrefutably.

way such that any effect in the material world can be understood to have a material cause — Kenosha Kid

- absolutely not! Science's role is that to discover the things how they are, not how we want them to be in order to confirm our theories. Matter acts under the rule of laws which are immaterial. Even if you don't believe in free will, you should admit atoms in your brain act in certain ways not because an immaterial law or laws of biology demand so, oftenly being in contradiction with physical or chemical laws for example.

Pigg's field can only get a grasp of material world, not the world as a whole, let alone proving that the world is just material.

He actually says there's no such thing as matter. Literally.

Quote please?

More or less: Newton didn't exorcise the ghost, he exorcised the machine. ... he (Newton) had a ghost all the way down, wasn't just the mind, but all the matter was ghostly. You have the link of the full video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67XvFZj8Kjw&t=494s

PS: I hope I'll soon find the video where he actually says that there's no evidence for matter.

0 evidence for it, tons against. — Eugen

None that I've heard, but go for it!

- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything. — Eugen

That's not what I said. It is unnecessary for science to explain everything. Either:

1. the immaterial world does not interact with the material world
2. the immaterial world does interact with the material world as a statistically predictable mediator of material causes;
3. the immaterial world does interact with the material world, but not as a statistically precitable mediator of material causes.

Those are complete and mutually exclusive.

If (1), belief in the world is unjustified -> materialism.
If (2), the "immaterial" world is in fact of the same nature as the material -> materialism.
If (3), there can be no science. God-of-the-gaps--type arguments aside, science breaks down if unpredictable effects can appear in the material world.

I'm not sure you took the vital point of this, which is (2): if one posits an immaterial substance -- the Piggs field -- and that substance interacts with our material world in such a way that it can mediate material cause and effect, it would be material. Materialism could rightly plant its flag in it and say: the Piggs field is amenable to physical enquiry, therefore is physical. By definition.

So an immaterial world that wants to keep its spots will need to define itself by the limits of expanding physical understanding (God of the gaps) or else give rise to uncaused material effects (killing science), or else do nothing at all. Not very compelling.

I watched 5 mins into that video from the timestamp you started at and he didn’t say anything against materialism yet. He said that since Newton’s universal gravitation we’ve had to throw out contact mechanism in order to preserve naturalism, because nature evidently does not operate in a contact-mechanical way. He didn’t use the word “materialism” in there, but “naturalism” is much closer to the usual sense of “materialism” than “mechanism” is.

It is unnecessary for science to explain everything. Either:

1. the immaterial world does not interact with the material world
2. the immaterial world does interact with the material world as a statistically predictable mediator of material causes;
3. the immaterial world does interact with the material world, but not as a statistically precitable mediator of material causes. — Kenosha Kid

4. There is an immaterial abstract part of the world that actually governs the material world, by laws of physics or chemistry, biology (we don't know to what extent measurable) and maybe intelligence (my intuition says that it isn't going to be measurable, especially if free will exists, but we could definitely have a science of free will).
So the world doesn't have to limit itself and physics doesn't exclude chemistry, nor biology the free will. That's how it really works.

None that I've heard, but go for it! — Kenosha Kid

Gravity (not material) governs matter. Hunger (non-material) makes your physical body to move in order to eat food (purpose - abstract). I could go on for hours.

Ok, I will search for the video.

Ok, found it. It clearly states: "...the world is entirely immaterial ", "...there is no material, there is no physicality".
YOUTUBE: Noam Chomsky Mind-body Problem II

For me it's a clear proof of his view.

4. There is an immaterial abstract part of the world that actually governs the material world — Eugen

That's (2) by definition.

Gravity (not material) governs matter. — Eugen

Gravity is the mediator between the mass of one material body and the action on another. That is also (2). The curvature of space-time is typically considered to fall into the material world, which is precisely what I meant by (2): anything discovered that mediates cause and effect in the material world is co-opted into the material world. In short, over time, the notion of "matter" has evolved from hard, massive stuff to anything in the physical description of nature.

A justification, post hoc:

All such mediating force fields are consistent with a particulate description of them. An electric field, for instance, is a medium both composed of photons and in which photons are excitations. The same is true of the strong force, and is supposed to be true of gravity, a current gap in which the immaterialist gods may still reside.

There does seem to be a dualism here: we have, on the one hand, massive particles like electrons, protons, skyscrapers; we have, on the other hand, these mediating fields like gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear field, the Higgs field. Surely this is a duality at least: material massive things and energetic fields.

But the elements of these massive things are also fields comprised of, and hosting excitations in the form of, massive, particulate matter. Really, the differences between them are whether they interact with the Higgs field or not, itself comprised of and hosting excitations in the form of, massive, particulate matter which rather ruins the massive/massless symmetry.

There are other differences, but those other differences don't split down the massive-body/massless-body divide either. Spin, for instance, or charge. The differences between fields are too numerous to select one arbitrarily and say, "Everything like this is one thing; everything not like it is another."

These are, of course, just models, albeit models with unparalleled predictive success. Whether there is a real distinction between {whatever mediates light, whatever mediates gravity, whatever mediates mass, etc.} and {massive thing, charged thing, etc.} or some other arbitrary-seeming dichotomy is (1) again: the immateriality of the supposed immaterial world does not enter into anything.

Hunger (non-material) makes your physical body to move in order to eat food (purpose - abstract) — Eugen

But that is also mediated. Hunger does not directly cause me to walk to the kitchen. There are a great number of steps in between. This isn't qualitatively different from saying that Oppenheimer's parents having sex causes cancer in Japan. Causal chains are not inconsistent with materialism.

I could go on for hours. — Eugen

No need, I have spotted the error already.

Timestamp please?