Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)

I think it was ridiculous how people responded to someone2. The
arguments against him were incredibly weak, and made evolutionists
here look like irrational, religious materialists.

He made a point that is empirically sound-- that subjective experience
is not grounded in the physical world.

Why is his premise empirically sound? Simply put, we have evidence
from our senses that subjective experience exists. We have no
evidence that subjective experience exists in a material realm, and we
have no evidence that we ever will. Science would tell us to go with
the view that has more sensory evidence-- that subjective experience
is immaterial. I am not alone in saying what I'm saying here-- the
majority of philosophers and scientists who write on the issue of
subjective experience (or the Hard Problem of Consciousness) agree
that it will likely never be solved, simply because it is impossible.

Let me clarify a couple of things that science *can* tell us, though.

1. We know that the brain evolves, and is still evolving to this day.
Its basic plan and structure is derived from the genes.
2. We know that subjective experience can only exist with a brain. we
know this because of experiments which show that when people
experience certain thoughts, there are certain characteristic synapses
going on. We also see that physical manipulation and stimulation of
the brain can actually force the person to experience a given emotion,
or move an arm, etc.
3. The current predominant view is summarized well by Steven Pinker.
"The mind is what the brain does."

What don't we know?:

1. The existence of free will is debated. Several theories exist,
each competing with each other to this day. Further research is
needed. It is also questioned whether a proper experiment to
determine free will can truly be accomplished, because of various
issues which might introduce error.
2. We don't know enough about how exactly the brain "does" the mind,
exactly.
3. We don't know if artificial intelligence could be conscious. It is
debated whether an experiment could determine this.

There are several theories that exist that attempt to explain how
exactly the brain-- a bunch of organic molecules, can produce such a
thing called consciousness.

Some theories introduce quantum physics. Other theories invoke the
concept of "strange loops" that reflect reality, and are reflected by
it, and emerge to be an "I" or a "Me" as a result. None of these
theories has been proven, and it is doubtful that any of them will be.

Philosophical materialists will have you think otherwise, but that's
because they have faith in their world view, which is not a very
scientific way to look at things.

The key point is this: however the mind works, the fact is that it has
evolved through the brain. Tons of evidence documents it, so this
entire discussion doesn't challenge the ironclad theory of evolution
whatsoever. It would be better suited for a psychology group, or a
philosophy group.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

.

Quantcast