The universe us important if it is appearance, and insignificant if it is reality.
Science (or scientism) not only tells us what is, but that what is -- which is to say, matter -- is all there is. Therefore, existence is totally and irretrievably insignificant.
Just because materialism is wrong, it doesn't make you right. Besides, you're just attacking a straw man, i.e., naive materialism, when contemporary versions are far more sophisticated.
Oh? Gemini, how exactly do these sophisticated versions of materialism differ from the vulgar kind we enjoy abusing around here?
More sophisticated versions of materialism, often referred to as physicalism, acknowledge the primacy of the physical world but incorporate a more nuanced understanding of perception, consciousness, and the relationship between the physical and the mental.
Hmm. Beware of a name change when something has been discredited, e.g., global warming to climate change, liberal to progressive, racial discrimination to equity, etc.
I am particularly interested in interiority, subjectivity, and consciousness. How could these ever be reduced to exteriority, objectivity, and matter?
Sophisticated Materialism (Physicalism) attempts to account for consciousness and mental states within a physicalist framework. This often involves more complex theories, such as:
Identity Theory: Mental states are identical to certain brain states.
If that were the case we could never know it.
Functionalism: Mental states are defined by their functional roles (what they do) within a system, which can be realized by physical states.
If functionalism is true it is false.
Emergentism: Consciousness and mental properties emerge from complex physical systems (like the brain) but are not simply reducible to the properties of their individual components.
"Emergence" is, to borrow a phrase from Whitehead, "a mystic chant over an unintelligible universe."
Non-reductive Physicalism: Acknowledges the reality of mental properties without reducing them to basic physical properties.
So, mental properties can be reduced to physical properties without really reducing them to physical properties?
Eh, I fail to see how sophisticated physicalism fares any better than the naive kind.
To believe that science is enough is the most naïve of superstitions.
I'm with Schuon:
Nothing is more contradictory than to deny the spirit, or even simply the psychic element, in favor of matter alone, for it is the spirit that denies, whereas matter remains inert and unconscious.
The fact that matter can be thought about proves precisely that materialism contradicts itself at its starting point, rather as with Pyrrhonism, for which it is true that there is no truth, or with relativism, for which all is relative except this affirmation.
Again, if we can explain matter, then it doesn't explain us.
In a vertical cosmos, matter
is nothing else but the extreme limit or precipitation-point in the process of manifestation, at least for our world; consequently, it is the “lowest” thing to be found within that reality that concerns us (ibid.).
Actually, the "lowest thing" would be the shadowy, sub-existential world of quantum potential, which is nothing until given form by something higher up.
Rather than assimilating mind to matter, it is matter that must be assimilated to mind. Which is precisely why matter is imbued with mind-like qualities such as wholeness, beauty, form, law, life, interiority, teleology, and intelligibility.
Good quote from Wolfgang Smith regarding mathematical formulations: "The thing that formulates them, i.e. the human mind, cannot itself be formulated mathematically." Which reminds me of the eulogy for the great mathematician, whose monumental contributions to math were said to be incalculable.
But what would we say about a great materialist such as Sam Harris? "His contributions to materialism truly... had mass and took up space." In other words, matter is material, not significant, let alone true. Besides, when a materialist dies, has anything actually happened?
I suppose this is an argument from authority, but Heisenberg -- who at least knew what he was talking about, since he was one of its inventors -- said that "Atomic science has turned away from the materialistic trend it had during the nineteenth century," while Planck maintained that the constants of nature
had "a superhuman significance" that both "cut into the bedrock of physical reality" and pointed to the Mind at the origin of all material reality.
I'm with Dávila: Do not reject. Prefer. So, it's not so much that I reject materialism as prefer realism, in part because it provides a deeper explanation of matter, especially matter as understood by modern physics.
Ultimately, -- and this is like an aphoristic rephrasing of Gödel's theorems --
Science, when it finishes explaining everything, but being unable to explain the consciousness that creates it, will not have explained anything.
Well, it will have explained that the cosmos is indeed intelligible to intelligence, and that these are two sides of the same vertical reality. Am I wrong, Gemini?
The text argues against materialism and physicalism, suggesting they fail to adequately account for consciousness, subjectivity, and the apparent intelligibility of the universe. It leans towards a view where mind or consciousness is more fundamental or at least equally real as matter, if not prior to it. The author favors a "realist" perspective that can better integrate both the material and the mental aspects of reality.
Meaning what exactly?
The image attempts to visually represent the tension and contrast discussed in the text between a purely materialistic view of reality and one that includes or prioritizes mind/consciousness.
- One side seems more grounded, perhaps even turning into or emerging from rock or earthly material. This could symbolize the materialistic perspective, where we are seen as fundamentally physical beings.
- The other side appears more luminous, ethereal, and connected to a light source from above. This could represent consciousness, spirit, or the non-material aspects of existence discussed in the text. The particles or energy emanating from this side might suggest the dynamic and perhaps less tangible nature of mind.
- The Ground: The rocky, somewhat barren ground could symbolize the purely physical universe as described by materialism.
- The Light from Above: This could represent a higher reality, intelligence, or the source of consciousness, contrasting with the purely material ground.
In essence, the image visually poses the central question of the text: Are we solely material beings (grounded in the rocks), or is there a more fundamental aspect of our existence, like consciousness (the luminous side connected to a higher light), that materialism fails to fully account for?
No comments:
Post a Comment