Empiricism and Materialism

[Empty Hands]

Empiricism is the philosophical position that knowledge comes from observation of the world. I hold to empiricism in contrast to a belief like rationalism, the position that knowledge of the world can be deduced from pure thought and logic. I do so because I am at heart a scientist dedicated to observing the world, and I've found that nearly all hypotheses are wrong - they are refined and the bad ones discarded by comparison with our external world and reality, the final check on our thought constructs.

Rationalism reminds me of the book "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov, in which a robot on a space station uses reason to "prove" that he could not possibly have been invented by human beings, and that the space station is the entirety of the Universe.

Materialism is the philosophical position that matter and matter alone are the explanation for our universe and all of the phenomena in it. A materialist holds that the supernatural does not exist, the mind is a product of the brain, the soul does not exist, and so forth. I also hold to materialism first because it is the basis of our science, and basically I have seen no evidence to disprove it. Neuroscience has shown that the mind is a product of the brain, and altering the brain alters the mind (personality, memory, and so forth). I have also seen no evidence for the existence of god(s), spirits, the supernatural, or anything beyond our physical reality that could not be explained by a physical effect.

The reason I bring these up and explain them is because I know that many of you hold beliefs completely opposed to materialism and empiricism. I'm curious to know what you do believe in, how you justify what you believe, and how you can say that materialism and empiricism are wrong.

 

[Makalakumu]

As far back as I can remember, I've never believed in God. Even as a small child, my parents would bring me to church and I would go to my religious education classes and I was never ever convinced that their was some big daddy in the sky watching me or that his Son came down to Earth to save us all. I suppose it's the opposite experience for religious people. Something about the experience triggers something in the mind and they experience a feeling of awe and reverence. I'm guessing, of course, because I simply have not had that experience with religion.

 

[billc]

I heard this argument from a physicist or some other scientist, I forget his exact field, who has attempted to look at life after death from a scientific standing. Now, you say that neuroscientists say that the mind is a product of the brain and that since the brain can be physically altered, through chemicals and surgical procedures which seemingly alter the mind it shows there is nothing supernatural at work? I ask this with no hostility just for clarification. This idea is probably old buy why do you think that this is where we are in our bodies. For example, if I control the computer you are using, through physical manipulation or through a virus, using what you have said above, I could make the argument that you do not actually exist? Wouldn't that be along the lines of what you say above?

 

[billc]

What if who we are as people, the soul or whatever it may be, is like a pilot in a biological machine, and the brain is simply the physical cpu of that machine. If you were in an enclosed aircraft and there was no way to see you, and you manipulated the craft using a computer, if someone introduced a virus or a different program, or a bullet was punched through it, the computer would act differently than it is supposed to. You however would still be you, but for each attempt you made to pilot the vehicle, a different result occured because of the damage to the cpu. Couldn't that account for the affect on the mind that drugs or physical changes in the brain have on the actual person?

 

[Empty Hands]

Now, you say that neuroscientists say that the mind is a product of the brain and that since the brain can be physically altered, through chemicals and surgical procedures which seemingly alter the mind it shows there is nothing supernatural at work? I ask this with no hostility just for clarification.

Nothing supernatural with the brain/mind, yes.

This idea is probably old by why do you think that this is where we are in our bodies.

The phylogeny of the brain can be followed. Simple organisms have simple neuronal cells, which are specialized for communication, that can respond to simple stimuli. When you get to worms, the neurons begin to cluster together into ganglia. When you get into insects, the ganglia tend to cluster into a few major ganglia, one of which is in the head. As you go farther up, one ganglia tends to dominate among the others, until you get into the chordates where you have a recognizable brain and spinal cord. Why a central ganglia that incorporates the others was selected for, or how this central ganglia/brain came to be located in the head, I couldn't say.

No other tissue type could support consciousness. Only neurons signal to each other with the speed and precision to make it happen. The neuron has been shaped from early in evolution to communicate, so it is natural that progressive brains and consciousness would arise from these cells.

For example, if I control the computer you are using, through physical manipulation or through a virus, using what you have said above, I could make the argument that you do not actually exist? Wouldn't that be along the lines of what you say above?

I'm not really following you, but I don't think so. Others could verify my existence, my own perception of my existence is unaltered, and you could travel to where I am and verify my existence. None of that is changed by what you see on your computer screen from "me."

 

[Empty Hands]

Couldn't that account for the affect on the mind that drugs or physical changes in the brain have on the actual person?

Your scenario is a common one, but it is unfalsifiable. Since changes in the brain leading to changes in the mind are explained away, then no experiment could be performed that could tell you if you are right or wrong. Thus it is of course possible, but there is no way to tell.

A similar unfalsifiable hypothesis is the "brain in the Matrix" scenario whereby the world as we know it does not exist, we are just made to believe it does.

 

[Empty Hands]

Also, if the "pilot in the box" has some sort of direction or control over what happens, then why should changes to the brain alter personality? That would argue that in fact the pilot has no control whatsoever, and is in fact subject to the machinery.

 

[Xue Sheng]

either empiricist materialism or materialistic empiricism

I will say I do not see things so cut and dry or so easily categorized or stuffed neatly in anyone box I am not sure you can be 100% one or the other.

Beyond that my beliefs or lack thereof are my own and I shall end with that I do feel this is a rather interesting topic and I shall read it as posts are added

 

[billc]

A lot of science is developing the equipment to measure things and like you say, maybe right now we haven't discovered the equipment we need to measure what we think we want to measure. Much like the bubonic plague in the middle ages. At first glance, a medieval scientist might say the rats caused the plague, on closer inspection they see the fleas and yet it is really something, inside the system of the flea that they couldn't see at that level of scientific advancement. they didn't have the equipment to see diseases at the microscopic level. This lack in equipment might affect the ability to know if there is something beyond the mind appearence, when the brain is manipulated.

the change in personality might simply be affecting the brain, and not the underlying being that we actually are. We might be trapped in the biological machine with no way to control it, but the soul is still there.

 

[Xue Sheng]

A bit more detail on Empiricism and Materialism

Empiricism vs Materialism

 

[Empty Hands]

A lot of science is developing the equipment to measure things and like you say, maybe right now we haven't discovered the equipment we need to measure what we think we want to measure.

This is true. Something important to keep in mind. Like I said above, all of our hypotheses are wrong or in need of modification.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

As far back as I can remember, I've never believed in God. Even as a small child, my parents would bring me to church and I would go to my religious education classes and I was never ever convinced that their was some big daddy in the sky watching me or that his Son came down to Earth to save us all. I suppose it's the opposite experience for religious people. Something about the experience triggers something in the mind and they experience a feeling of awe and reverence. I'm guessing, of course, because I simply have not had that experience with religion.

pssst Mauna... you know all those voices you keep hearing your head?
Thats god playing a practical joke on you...shhhhhhh don't tell anyone though, people take God pretty seriously after all....

 

[Sukerkin]

Thats god playing a practical joke on you...shhhhhhh don't tell anyone though, people take God pretty seriously after all....

It staggers me that they do in an age where the uncontrollable environmental influences, that so scared early man, giving rise to the concept of 'gods', have been explained (if not entirely understood (take a bow chaos theory)).

It's something I have termed "the abrogation of reason" in the past but, in fact, it seems it is tied in with the very brain functions that allow us both to dream and plan for the future based on the past i.e. to rationalise a fantasy milieu.

The results of experiments in this area have shown that it is possible to induct a sense of the 'divine' with magnetic field manipulations (much easier on a person than all that fasting and ingesting hallucogenic chemicals (or the 'god' channels on satellite tv)).

It's one of the points of evidence that God is of Man rather than the other way around. Biochemistry is what we are and that is governed by the laws that modulate the way that matter (and energy) interacts.

People taking comfort from the idea that there is a Creator that birthed the entire universe just for mankind to worship him is not something that particularly concerns me. People like Bill, who hold their faith because it helps them live their lives, does not concern me. People in groups, brainwashing themselves into making decisions founded upon a non-provable divine being, does concern me; for that is insanity doused in a patina of respectability inherited from an elite priest class who, millenia ago, concocted a tale to soothe the masses for the benefit of their rulers.

Religious barn-potism or rational materialism? It's a choice we have to make as a species at some point. We can't have both ... or you end up with Warhammer 40K!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First, I accept that both inductive and deductive reasoning have their place.

Second, I accept that belief in that which cannot be tested is not science.

Third, I accept that belief that anything which cannot be tested does not exist is also not science.

Every generation accepts that flawed scientific proofs and theories of the past were flawed because their science was incomplete and primitive, but our science is without flaw and cannot be wrong. The next generation will find us as primitive as the scientists who put people into mental institutions for claiming that rocks fell from the sky.

I believe there is a physical world that exists, is real, and has laws. It can be tested, measured, and predicted. We do not yet know everything there is to know about it.

I believe that the world of human consciousness is a weird, wonderful, and so-far unfathomable experience that is unique to each person, self-evident, and unprovable in any way. We know we can alter consciousness. We cannot define what consciousness is in any meaningful way.

In the end, I know this. I can stand in awe at the glory of the universe, and it doesn't matter if it was put there by an intentional act of creation, or if it's an accident based upon scientific factors we don't yet have an explanation for. It's glorious, and that is enough for me. I'm interested in why it is, but it doesn't stop being glorious either way.

With regard to religion; no other creature that we have found can imagine a creator. That doesn't imply that a creator exists; but it implies that many of us seem to have need of one. Proving that what appears to be a basic human need for many does not actually exist doesn't seem to me to be a productive or logical use of our time. What would be the point? Existence does not seem to be a necessary attribute of God for humans.

I sometimes suspect that the primary motivation of those who are strongly driven to disprove, dispel belief, express incredulity or cast aspersions on the mental ability of those who choose to believe is one of sadistic pleasure. It is not enough for some to have no God; they are not pleased unless they have destroyed the God experience for others at most, insulted them at the least. Present company excepted, of course; these are just some observations on the experience of religion as enemy of science.

 

[Makalakumu]

pssst Mauna... you know all those voices you keep hearing your head?
Thats god playing a practical joke on you...shhhhhhh don't tell anyone though, people take God pretty seriously after all....

LOL! Imagine people who believe in a man walking on water, turning water into wine and rising from the dead calling me weird! Lol, I can take it. From my perspective though, nothing I talk about is THAT far out.