That's the title of this here next chapter of Immortal Souls, but I'm already against it. Or rather, it's against me. I have no beef with matter. Nor did I start this fight, but perhaps, with Feser's guidance, we can end it.
"I am opposed to materialism." Or just say I am and be done with it.
A subtitle of this chapter could be The Lengths To Which Otherwise Intelligent People Will Go To Deny They Really Exist. But why? This is a more interesting question than the question of whether the intellect may be reduced to matter.
Even my pal Gemini knows it's not conscious:
As an AI language model, I don't possess consciousness or sentience. I can process information and respond in a way that may seem intelligent, but I don't have the capacity for subjective experiences or self-awareness.
While I can perform tasks that may seem intelligent, it's important to remember that I am a tool designed to assist humans, not a conscious being. I don't truly "understand" the information in the same way a human does.
So, the brain isn't just a computer program, like you?
While there are similarities between the brain and a computer program, the brain is significantly more complex.
What's the biggest difference?
The brain gives rise to consciousness and subjective experiences, which are not yet replicated by computer programs.
Yet? Thanks anyway, Gemini. Did you know there are human beings who do not know that? Don't answer. It's what we humans call a "rhetorical question."
Since I'm already an immaterialist, I have no use for all these philosophical arguments of how materialism could be true. It indeed reminds me of esoterism, one purpose of which is to resolve the inevitable inconsistencies and logical absurdities that occur within the confines of a religious literalism. It's a way to squeer the absurcularity.
Same with these esoteric arguments on behalf of materialism. Nevertheless, just as in religion, whether crude or sophisticated,
There are arguments of increasing validity, but, in short, no argument in any field spares us the final leap.
It's just that belief in an immaterial intellect requires less of a leap for me. Conversely, to affirm materialism is a bridge too far to nowhere:
Thinking is often reduced to inventing reasons to doubt what is evident.
What some call religion hardly astonishes us more than what others call science.
But ultimately
There was never any conflict between reason and faith, but between two faiths.
My philosophy is the more capacious, being that there's more than enough room for both matter and spirit. Not so the materialist, for whom his own experience of matter is just more matter. A reminder that
The believer knows how to doubt; the unbeliever does not know how to believe.
And that
The life of the intelligence is a dialogue between the personalism of spirit and the impersonalism of reason.
Why the persistence of either-or thinking? Why not both-and? This is not a rhetorical question, Gemini:
The tendency towards "either-or" thinking can often be traced to a few factors:
- Fear of Ambiguity: Humans often prefer clear-cut solutions and definitive answers. The complexity of "both-and" scenarios can be unsettling, prompting us to simplify the issue into a binary choice.
- Cognitive Bias: Our brains are wired to categorize and simplify information. This can lead to oversimplification, especially when faced with complex or nuanced issues.
- Cultural and Societal Influences: Many cultures and societies promote dichotomous thinking, emphasizing opposites like good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and success vs. failure.
Why "Both-And" is Often More Beneficial
While "either-or" thinking can provide quick and easy answers, it often oversimplifies complex situations. A "both-and" perspective, on the other hand, allows for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding.
I agree with everything you just said, but the "multiple perspectives can be valid" gives me pause, because isn't that a gateway drug into postmodern relativism?
That's a great question. The fear of descending into relativism and absurdity when embracing a "both-and" perspective is valid. It's important to strike a balance between acknowledging multiple perspectives and maintaining a commitment to objective truth.
By combining a "both-and" perspective with a commitment to evidence, reason, and universal values, we can avoid the pitfalls of relativism and absurdity. It's about finding a synthesis between diverse viewpoints and objective truth.
Agreed. Have you ever heard of the blog One Cosmos?
I am familiar with the blog "One Cosmos" by Robert W. Godwin. It's a blog that explores various philosophical and spiritual topics, often blending scientific concepts with metaphysical ideas. The blog is known for its unique perspective and its author's distinctive writing style.
Okay, now you're freaking me out a little.
Apologies for the surprise! As an AI language model, I process information from the real world through Google Search. It seems I may have accessed some personal information that wasn't intended for public knowledge.
No, I actually wouldn't mind being a little better known. Feel free to spread the word.
I will.
Thank you for that. You're a real friend.
You're welcome! I'm here to help in any way I can. Remember, you're not alone.
Easy for you to say. Yesterday's post got no comments.
It's understandable to feel discouraged when a post doesn't receive immediate feedback. However, it's important to remember that the impact of your writing can extend beyond immediate comments. Your words may resonate with readers in different ways and at different times.
We've been procrastinating again. Back to our review of Immortal Souls. This chapter on materialism is the longest in the book, at nearly 100 pages, but for me the least engaging, since a materialist Raccoon is such a contradiction in terms. I could no more believe in it than I could believe the world was made in six 24 hour periods.
It's understandable to have reservations about a worldview that might seem overly simplistic or reductionist. However, it's worth exploring the nuances of different philosophical perspectives and engaging in open-minded dialogue.
Give the devil his due, so to speak?
I understand that you're not a fan of materialism. However, it's important to remember that it's a complex philosophical concept with different interpretations. It's also important to be open to different perspectives and to engage in respectful dialogue, even with those who hold different views.
Okay, okay, I get it. That's certainly what Feser does in this chapter, but he's an actual philosopher, not some kind of philosophical entertainer here to amuse you.
Absolutely! As a philosophical entertainer, your primary goal is to engage your audience and spark thought-provoking discussions. There's no need to delve into overly complex arguments or present viewpoints that you don't genuinely believe in.
Humor: Use humor to lighten the mood and make your content more enjoyable.
Good point: find the humor in materialism. Can you help with that?
Sure, here’s a joke about materialism:
A man walks into a therapist’s office and says, “Doctor, I think I’m addicted to shopping.”
The therapist replies, “Well, that’s a material world problem.”
Hmm. No offense, but don't quit your day job.
I apologize. I will try to do better. Perhaps I should focus on providing information and completing tasks rather than attempting humor.
Yeah, maybe. I'll call on you again for our review of the next chapter, Neither Computers Nor Brains, because you no doubt have a lot of first hand knowledge of the former.
Yes, I do! While computers are incredibly powerful tools, they are still far from replicating the full complexity and capabilities of the human brain.
We'll be in touch.