That's (2) by definition. — Kenosha Kid

No, it isn't. Regarding the forces that govern the matter, I actually almost agree with you, except 2 things:
1. You've mentioned space matter curvature, which I believe to be utterly dementia, but hey... welcome to modern science! I do not believe in modern physics, simply because everything is considered to fall under our observation, and that's subjective. Science must be objective. Still, irrelevant to our discussion.
2. I am pretty sure the laws of physics are connected with matter, but I am not sure if matter determines the laws, viceversa, or it's something inbetween. You seem to be pretty sure matter determines the laws and there's absolutely no proof in this sense. But again, irrelevant to our debate.
The thing is that this is indeed connected with (2), but all similarities between (2) and (4) end here.

So, biology (deterministic or not), has a clear purpose, evolution has a purpose and life beings have all sorts of purposes. The rest of the Universe doesn't seem to have, it's just lifeless pointless and purposeleess matter (that if you ignore the fine tuning argument, which scares the hell out of materialists). So there are two dimensions - purposless and purpose-driven and they actually do not exclude each other, as materialists suggest.

Intelligence and consciousness - atoms aren't conscious and they have no purpose nor intelligence. 0 all the way. If you combine 0 with 0 you get 0. Not on this one, because a certain combination of atoms brings self-awareness, purpose and intelligence, not to mention perception, thoughts or the sensation of happiness. In the worst case, it brings the illusion of all mentioned, but anyway, as I've said, immaterial.

So if the universe has (and it has) both lifeless, pointless matter and purpose-driven matter, I don't see why the universe cannot have a huge deterministic part, a quantum part (don't believe in this one either) and a free will part. I am just so surprised when materialists ask us to choose between those. It's just silly.

Hunger does not directly cause me to walk to the kitchen. There are a great number of steps in between — Kenosha Kid

Just enlighten my mind with that one please. Give me more details. And please be free to spot all my other errors.

Timestamp — Pfhorrest

the video is very short, please watch it, because he mentions in different parts. If you don't want to, please trust my word hehe.

It’s half an hour long, that’s not “short” just to confirm what I expect to find: that Chomsky is a modern physicalist panpsychist, and is only denying (like @Kenosha Kid has explained) that everything is made up of Cartesian billiard balls, but rather that the physical world as understood today is more subtle than that and not clearly differentiable from the “mental” in a metaphysical way.

It’s half an hour long, that’s not “short” just to confirm — Pfhorrest

The video is 5 mins. I will send you the link

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoRmqbPFasE&t=203s

It's 4 mins and it clearly says what I said

He simply says nature isn't material (he literally said that) and in numerous other videos he states that experiments only show that there's aparently no such thing as consciouss decision, but at the same time, that doesn't disprove free will. He stresses the fact that in fact that the biggest secret doesn't lie in consciousness and that the world is incompressible for our brain. It really doesn't seem to be a materialistic view at all.

You've mentioned space matter curvature, which I believe to be utterly dementia — Eugen

Empirically and independently verified dementia... probably isn't dementia. Or do you think science is some kind of mass hallucination? :rofl:

I do not believe in modern physics — Eugen

That's fair enough. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, the great thing about facts is that their true whether you believe them or not.

Now, irrespective of your personal dementia (I mean your mad beliefs :joke: ), you have surely noticed that modern physics is widely accepted by other people. You're asking the question: why is materialism so popular. As we've both noted, modern philosophical materialism and science have a mutual understanding. The most successfully tested models of our reality are controversial to you; they are not controversial to the mainstream. Is is therefore really a surprise materialism and determinism are so popular, even if you think they are wrong? And let me remind you of your stated scope for this discussion:

I don't want this to be a topic about denying or defending materialism, but rather the reasons behind its popularity. — Eugen

It's 4 mins and it clearly says what I said — Eugen

So "evqerything is immaterial" is a materialistic view. Interesting...

Intelligence and consciousness - atoms aren't conscious and they have no purpose nor intelligence. 0 all the way. If you combine 0 with 0 you get 0. Not on this one, because a certain combination of atoms brings self-awareness, purpose and intelligence, not to mention perception, thoughts or the sensation of happiness. — Eugen

Apologies, you mentioned this before and I meant to respond but didn't. Your 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0 representation is that of yay many independent, non-interacting atoms. You're right: that will not yield a conscious system. In fact, it will not yield a system at all.

For the purposes of finishing this in a finite amount of time, let's just ask whether it is possible for a system of two atoms to exhibit behaviour that two independent atoms cannot. The answer is yes. Some examples, you ask! Sure! Rigidity: two independent atoms of carbon are easy to separate; two interacting (via the action of photons) atoms of carbon are not. Carbon is a rigid material (ask diamonds), but there is no carbon rigidity in a single carbon atom. Thus rigidity is a quality of a system of atoms not present in each atom.

This does not explain every single emergent phenomenon (I could go on just about C2), but it does not rely on modern physics (good old fashioned chemistry is fine) and it does do away with the idea that emergent properties cannot occur. A better, perhaps more specific argument is required for consciousness.

Btw, you don't need to go down to the atomic level to find the mystery of consciousness. For the most part, one would expect the phenomena to emerge, if it could emerge (and it does) at biochemical levels. The answer to consciousness is not going to take an atomistic form, though some parts of that answer might rely on atomic theory. It is not necessary to give a complete bottom-up depiction starting from fundamental particles. It is sufficient to understand how chemistry is a good approximation to quantum mechanics for chemical substances, how biology is a good approximation for chemistry in biological substances, etc. If one can derive the laws of biology from chemistry, and of chemistry from quantum mechanics, and demonstrate a biochemical explanation for consciousness, an atomic explanation is redundant.

Thanks for the link. I watched the whole thing and Chomsky is saying what I expected, just that the world is not like Descartes thought it was. Everything he says is consistent with what Kenosha Kid is saying.

Empirically and independently verified dementia... probably isn't dementia. Or do you think science is some kind of mass hallucination? :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

They just validate their own theories and it's really not that hard to do that. Again, science has to be objective and there are many scientists who do not agree with today's way of doing science. Again, irrelevant to our debate even if I am wrong.

Now, irrespective of your personal dementia (I mean your mad beliefs :joke: ), you have surely noticed that modern physics is widely accepted by other people. — Kenosha Kid

Torture, rape or magic were accepted and popular among societies. I am sure future scientists will laugh at today's science.

Apologies — Kenosha Kid

no need, you fonally agree with me. So you admit that a combination of atoms can change the paradigm: from fluid to rigid, or from consciousless to conscious. Why don't extrapolate and say from pure matter to information or from deterministic to non-deterministic?

And let me remind you of your stated scope for this discussion: — Kenosha Kid

No need to, I just couldn't resist. Determinism...

They just validate their own theories and it's really not that hard to do that. — Eugen

More like a conspiracy theory?

I am sure future scientists will laugh at today's science. — Eugen

Inevitably. It is, I suspect unlike your belief system, a self-correcting system.

Why don't extrapolate and say from pure matter to information — Eugen

Because no transition is necessary. Materialism has accounted for information well. If you can send me a video link that is not encoded materially, please do.

Hunger does not directly cause me to walk to the kitchen. There are a great number of steps in between
— Kenosha Kid

Just enlighten my mind with that one please. Give me more details. And please be free to spot all my other errors. — Eugen

This genuinely surprised me. I get that you seek immaterial mediators everywhere, but I struggle to get my head around how you can believe that "I feel hungry" -> "I am walking into the kitchen" has no intermediate stages. Even, "I push down on the sofa and my torso rises" is an intermediate stage. It seems that you not only believe in immaterial forces, you believe that even physical human actions are atomistic, i.e. cannot be broken down into a series of smaller actions.

Ok, I think I have to admit I was wrong all the time, after all you are two, so the majority wins.
But I'll be less sad if you explain me how "...everything is immaterial" is consistent to materialism. And by the way, Chomsky is considered to be a materialistic agnostic and he actually said he identifies himself neither with materialism nor with idealism.
Regarding Kenosha Kid, I think we actually starting to agree on many things, particularly because I do not see his arguments in favor of what I understand to be materialism, but rather with what Chomsky says, as you interestingly noticed.
So the only thing remained to be seen is that actually Noam is indeed materialist. If he is, than I have simply no arguments left.
So please bombard me with arguments.

More like a conspiracy theory? — Kenosha Kid

More like a Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive makes more sense than to say it's a combination of the two just because you, as an observer, no not have this information. But again, these are abstract things and you hate them.

If you can send me a video link that is not encoded materially, please do. — Kenosha Kid

You are totally right: loys of information (maybe all of it) is inside matter. Wait, what? Did I say information? Damn it, that's not material, therefore it does not exist.

As for the hunger argument, I have nothing more to say. You've totally convinced me that hunger has nothing to do with going to kitchen. I already feel I got smarter and soon I'll become a true materialist.

PS: I thought I heard Chomsky saying "our mind is cannot comprehend the reality". Materialists say they will explain everything through matter, while Chomsky says "nothing is material and the reality is too complex for our brains".

More like a Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive makes more sense than to say it's a combination of the two just because you, as an observer, no not have this information. — Eugen

I actually agree with that. There is little evidence that macroscopic bodies can be in superposition. Most physicists would agree with the above.

You are totally right: loys of information (maybe all of it) is inside matter. Wait, what? Did I say information? Damn it, that's not material, therefore it does not exist. — Eugen

As you just demonstrated yourself, it quite clearly is material, so problem there.

You've totally convinced me that hunger has nothing to do with going to kitchen. — Eugen

It certainly doesn't have "nothing to do with going to kitchen". Can I characterise your position as this: there is either nothing causally relating two things, or the relation must be direct and unmediated? I'm not even sure this is an existing philosophy.

Inevitably. It is, I suspect unlike your belief system, a self-correcting system. — Kenosha Kid

Than just try to laugh yourself at today's science. Seriously, future scientists will laugh their abstract asses at how we "curve" space and time by running faster.

As you just demonstrated yourself, it quite clearly is material, so problem there. — Kenosha Kid

The video itself is material. I think the image itself is made up of photons and other material stuff. But the information itself, the message of it is something abstract and immaterial and it does influence. The meaning of what you say made me write this, not the photons. That transcends matter.

It certainly doesn't have "nothing to do with going to kitchen". Can I characterise your position as this: there is either nothing causally relating two things, or the relation must be direct and unmediated? — Kenosha Kid

Nop, I didn't say that, but it's not relevant either. If hunger (immaterial) contribute to the chain of causes, than materialism is kind of f***ed.

By the way, I am starting to think that you're more a rational person than a materialist.

I really think Pfhorrest was pretty right saying you have a similar vision to Chomsky's. The problem is that he isn't materialist.

I guess you were fooled by my harsh statements regarding materialism, therefore you thought I was automatically a mad christian mad at this view. You probably hate mad christians, therefore you started to defend materialism. But I am not a mad christian and another aspect of today's people is that they use science to prove or disprove God, and you arguments, even if they are intended to defend materialism, many of them do not.

Than just try to laugh yourself at today's science. Seriously, future scientists will laugh their abstract asses at how we "curve" space and time by running faster. — Eugen

On the contrary, I can appreciate the successes of scientific achievement to date while recognising that current paradigms will almost certainly be overthrown. It is an iterative process, but a win-win one. If our current models accord with new observation, we learn something. If they do not, we learn something better.

The meaning of what you say made me write this, not the photons. That transcends matter. — Eugen

So seeing my message was not a cause of you responding to it? The photons are an incidental material fact of a transmission of meaning?

If hunger (immaterial) contribute to the chain of causes, than materialism is kind of f***ed. — Eugen

But again that's begging the question.

By the way, I am starting to think that you're more a rational person than a materialist. — Eugen

I am both, I hope. And a modern physicist to boot (doctorate in quantum mechanics).

I really think Pfhorrest was pretty right saying you have a similar vision to Chomsky's — Eugen

It's possible. I once heard Chomsky speak on moral relativism and I dismissed him as an idiot, so I never gave much care for his views after that. Probably a bit harsh.

I guess you were fooled by my harsh statements regarding materialism, therefore you thought I was automatically a mad christian mad at this view. You probably hate mad christians, therefore you started to defend materialism. But I am not a mad christian and another aspect of today's people is that they use science to prove or disprove God, and you arguments, even if they are intended to defend materialism, many of them do not. — Eugen

I wasn't assuming you were a mad Christian, I just needed an example of an immaterial world for sake of illustration and analogy. I did assume you were a dualist, since materialism rather defined itself in opposition to dualism, but it wasn't terminal.

Anyway, it was an enlightening conversation. It can be difficult sometimes getting your head around other points of view. You are the second person today to attest to an experience of the world I hadn't ever considered before. I'm not sure I'll ever quite get it, less sure I could ever quite communicate mine to you, but something to chew over is always good.

There are, as you’ve noticed, different senses of the term “materialism”.

The sense in most common colloquial use today is the one that means the denial of things that aren’t ontologically made of the same kind of stuff as rocks and trees and so on. That seems to be the kind you’re principally against. The kind that denies that there is more than just one kind of stuff, the same kind of stuff that ordinary things we’re familiar with are made of.

Another sense, typically only understood by philosophers today, means a specific subtype of the first type, one that holds that that one kind of stuff is some kind of material substance that is in principle separable from its apparent attributes, a solid, extended stuff that only interacts with other stuff by banging into it and pushing it around.

Modern physicalism is an evolution of “materialism” in the first sense, but a rejection of “materialism” in the second sense. It says that there’s only one kind of stuff, the stuff that rocks and trees and tables and chairs are made of, but that stuff isn’t the hard billiard balls that Descartes thought it was. Rather, physical stuff as we understand it today is made of force fields embedded in a malleable spacetime, interacting with each other and with spacetime in ways that give rise to what macroscopically seem like hard little billiard balls, but also all kinds of other things, like gravity and electromagnetism and many much much weirder phenomena. But it’s still all understood to be the same kind of stuff, manifesting in different ways.

So far as I can tell Chomsky is a modern physicalist like that, as am I, and Kenosha it seems. Chomsky and I are also panpsychists, who hold that all of that physical stuff has a mindlike aspect to it; but it’s still all the same physical stuff, no ghosts or gods or other weird woo.

I am both, I hope. And a modern physicist to boot (doctorate in quantum mechanics). — Kenosha Kid

Super-nice. I really hope you will be objective. My father won the 1st place in physics in my country several times and I believe he was also no1 in Balkans at a time. He was a member of the international nuclear physicists (I forgot the name of the organisation, but I believe it has the headquarters in Viena). I can also say I was lucky to be friends with a guy who won no1 place in the world in physics. Well, I don't know much about physics, but I know how the things work there at the human level, and trust me when I am saying there's pure personal interest. Quantum mechanics gets in contradiction with relativity? No problem, we'll invent the quantum gravity. When that is proven to be wrong, no problem! We'll find something else, maybe a constant or some shit. Not to mention the aberrations in both relativity and quantum that you don't have to be a genious in order to spot them. As a citizen of this planet, please be an objective scientist and forget you're atheist, religious, or that you might have invested your entire time in something that is probably false.

So seeing my message was not a cause of you responding to it? — Kenosha Kid

it was definitely one of the causes. The material part is there, of course, but the abstract message was also a determinant factor.

But again that's begging the question. — Kenosha Kid

I don't get it: the feeling, perception, you name it of hunger is one of the causes and it isn't material.

I'm not sure I'll ever quite get it, less sure I could ever quite communicate mine to you, but something to chew over is always good. — Kenosha Kid

I'd love to communicate with you and with people like you. All my friends are busy with their corporate materialistic world and basically don't give a damn about these topics. On the other hand, I am a teacher with plenty of free time and curiosities alike. So I might text you sometimes.

no ghosts or gods or other weird woo. — Pfhorrest

- you see, I 99% agree with you in principle, only I cannot agree when you say Chomsky does not believe in the ghost when he actually said "everything is ghosted and everything is immaterial." To me it sounds exactly like the opposite of what you're saying.
I think Chomsky is saying forget about the material, it is actually the opposite, meaning fields, forces, maybe even intelligence and free will. I tend to believe he actually believes in free will, but not as a consciouss process. I am also sure he definitely does not disprove it.
I do believe he actually stated that this universal ghost can be intelligent as a whole, but I am not sure about that. I am pretty sure about the rest though.

you were totally right about the type of materialism I am fighting against, and it's the one very popular in the academic world, that is why I am so surprised.

My father won the 1st place in physics in my country several times and I believe he was also no1 in Balkans at a time. — Eugen

Are you thinking of tennis? In what sense did your father win physics?

Well, I don't know much about physics, but I know how the things work there at the human level, and trust me when I am saying there's pure personal interest. Quantum mechanics gets in contradiction with relativity? No problem, we'll invent the quantum gravity. — Eugen

But you understand there's no quantum gravity theory accepted by the scientific community, yes? It's reasonable to make hypotheses. They're not saying it's true.

I have worked in academic physics and the quality control is brutal. You say you don't know much about it, but you act like you can dismiss theory on grounds of taste. There is an abundance of scientists who give up huge amounts of their free time to dismiss theory on grounds that it's bullshit. While I can see you think there'd be benefit to science in getting your input early doors, trust me: we have actual experts trying to destroy our work continuously.

The other problem you raise is quite common: that science changes its mind when nature calls out its errors. You're not alone in characterizing that as a lack of integrity, and I doubt I can convince you otherwise other than to say we see no integrity in sticking to a stupid idea. Self-correction is precisely why science has succeeded as much as it has.

I think by saying “it’s all ghost” Chomsky is being figurative, in several ways: all physics as we now understand it is in terms of what pre-Newtonians would call “spooky” or “occult” forces at a distance, but that’s just normal physics now; and also Chomsky is a panpsychist and phenomenalist (you can be both a physicalist and phenomenalist; I am also both) so on his account everything is made up of something like “mental contents” and also has something like a “mind”, so all of the ordinary physical stuff is itself kind of “mental” in nature.

Chomsky is also clearly arguing against Cartesian substance dualism in those videos, saying the mind-body problem is a non-problem once we understand “bodies” to be made of “mind” in the metaphysical sense Descartes meant. And he certainly believes in both consciousness and free will, but that doesn’t exclude minds in our ordinary sense from being made of matter in the ordinary sense either. It’s all one kind of stuff, that doesn’t fit neatly into either of Descartes’ boxes.

I don’t know for certain, but given the rest of his views I expect Chomsky probably also endorses functionalism about mind and compatibilism about will.

Are you thinking of tennis? In what sense did your father win physics? — Kenosha Kid

))) If that were the case, I would be the rich son of a tennis player. Unfortunately, I was talking about the National Physics Olympiad, and Balkan almost sure. Anyway, my bad!

Well, now we 100% agree! But I don't think Dawkins or Sam Harris would agree with us, although the latter one is beginning to become less and less sure about his initial ideas, or at least that's my impression.
I was talking about these materialists.