Deterministic Materialism is Necessarily Incoherent

[Meleagar]

I would like to thank Judicator and Pfad for their arguments, as they have helped me to formulate the following argument and find more clarity about this issue.

Deterministic Materialism is the view that ultimtely everything in the universe can be explained via material cause and effect sequences, even if those sequences include some random factors. IOW, whatever I think is ultimately just the result of some kind of cause and effect from material substrate. Molecules clang around, so to speak, and I decide to go to church. Other molecules clang around, and someone else decided there is no god.

This presents a problem in arguments, because arguments are necessarily about making (or attempting to make) true statements, or evaluating statements for their truth value. "Truth", in this case, is about the rational nature of how inference are drawn from premises to reach conclusions.

This process of making and discerning true statements must, in order to be coherent, be made either deliberately, or necessarily. If true statements are made by chance with no means of deliberately or necessarily evaluating them as true, then our evaluations of them are also chance. Without some means, some where, of making deliberate or necessary true statements or evaluations, then all we can hope for or chance, and not coherent correlations of statements to truth.

Essentially, if left to chance, we'd be like monkeys banging on keyboards; every once in a while a monkey would write a true statement, and every once in a while another monkey would agree that the statement was true - not deliberately, or necessarily, but by chance. Thus, the framework of true correlations would be incoherent.

From a deterministic materialist perspective, "deliberacy", or free will, is caused by necesary and chance forces, so there is no true "deliberacy" in the world. All they have left are chance and physical laws to produce true statements. Chance is insufficient to make coherent true statements, so we must turn to law.

If physical law necessarily produced humans that made true statements, then all humans would make true statements all the time. We factually know this to not be the case. The materialist might argue that chance intervenes and redirects humans into making false statements; the problem here is that there is no deliberate means by which we can distinguish between necessarily true statements and chance untrue statements, because we have no true deliberacy; our deliberacy is produced by both necessary and chance factors, which may result in flawed reasoning when we attempt to discern true statements.

This is the conundrum the determinstic materialist faces: they have no means by which to expect to make true statements, or discern them, except by chance - making their position - logically - necessary incoherent.

Their position might be true, but they can only argue that if it is true, then they have arrived at that position by chance, because they have no deliberate or necessary means by which to discern or argue its truth. They have no coherent argument as to why it is true; if true, it is only true (from our perspective) by chance, and not by deliberate reasoning or necessity.

[ItsDarts]

I believe in materialism, the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena and I agree that deterministic materialism is incoherent. Its incoherent because determinism is metaphysical and doesn't exist on the same plain as materialism. And what I mean by metaphysical can be explained like describing physical laws. Laws can be explained but they doesn't exist as a material thing. For instance, we can explain gravity, but we can't touch it. We can explain thermodynamics, witness its effects, but we can't touch a "thermodynamic" and we can't touch a "Gravity". So the phrase "physical phenomena" is described as an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. There is nothing deterministic about these physical phenomena. We are a random collection of atoms and when we die, our atoms will clump into many other random things and so on and so on as they have for the past 13.7 billion years. If "we" never existed, our atoms would still exist without "us" being here to contemplate them. I say this because prior to just a few 100,000 thousand years ago, "we" weren't here to contemplate our own atoms. Most of the atoms you were born with have already moved on to other things.

[Meleagar]

I believe in materialism, the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena and I agree that deterministic materialism is incoherent. Its incoherent because determinism is metaphysical and doesn't exist on the same plain as materialism. And what I mean by metaphysical can be explained like describing physical laws. Laws can be explained but they doesn't exist as a material thing. For instance, we can explain gravity, but we can't touch it. We can explain thermodynamics, witness its effects, but we can't touch a "thermodynamic" and we can't touch a "Gravity". So the phrase "physical phenomena" is described as an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. There is nothing deterministic about these physical phenomena. We are a random collection of atoms and when we die, our atoms will clump into many other random things and so on and so on as they have for the past 13.7 billion years. If "we" never existed, our atoms would still exist without "us" being here to contemplate them. I say this because prior to just a few 100,000 thousand years ago, "we" weren't here to contemplate our own atoms. Most of the atoms you were born with have already moved on to other things.

Unfortunately, even if random materialism is true, there's no way to logically support believing it (see argument in O.P.; chance cannot generate coherent truthful statements either); the question I'd have for you is - why believe it, if there is no way to logically support it?

[Jack]

...chance cannot generate coherent truthful statements...

Of course it can. Chance can produce 50 heads in a row of coin tosses, it can produce life on a planet. What is there that limits what chance can produce? How can anyone contend that chance cannot produce a an certain outcome?

[ItsDarts]

Unfortunately, even if random materialism is true, there's no way to logically support believing it (see argument in O.P.; chance cannot generate coherent truthful statements either); the question I'd have for you is - why believe it, if there is no way to logically support it?

If not materialism, then what? Can you explain in more detail why chance (the metaphysical) can not generate coherent truthful statements? At 1 foot away from a large wall, you are only seeing a small part of the picture. You don't see the entire wall. But you do see fine detail in the texture of the paint. Step back to see the whole wall and you lose the detail. This is called resolution. At close distance to materialism (particle level) you see the fine details of particles, and throw in the Heisenberg principle which states

that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum is determined by the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined.

The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength. Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there are no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum....

And you have the randomness necessary to eliminate total determinism. But step back to the human level and some determinism is allowed at various scales, things can be predicted, including truth, however, even truth is subject to change and we can only agree on truths with some level of confidence.

I admit that my "belief" is open to debate and many minds greater than mine argue about this subject a lot and I'm certainly no philosophy student or professor. However, I do have a degree of certainty in materialism based on all the empirical evidence for it. As I alluded to earlier, materialism may not be suited for discussion on the metaphysical scale.

Science has some degree of certainly that "mind" is physical based on studies of people with damaged brains, lacking various abilities. If the same certain part of the brain is removed, for instance, speech can be eliminated. Remove a different part of the brain and various emotions can be eliminated and this works for everyone the same way. Since every brain is random to some degree, there will be those who wont accept truths and there will be those who do.

But seriously, if not materialism, then what else is there? Is it more tenable?

[Meleagar]

[QUOTE=ItsDarts;642509]If not materialism, then what? Can you explain in more detail why chance (the metaphysical) can not generate coherent truthful statements?

Because to be coherent they'd have to be recognizable or understandable as a set of truthful statements. If they are being proposed by chance, and accepted by chance, they aren't being recognized as truthful statements; they would just be statements that happen to be true, and which happen to be accepted, with no means to deliberately or necessarily validate them.

However, I do have a degree of certainty in materialism based on all the empirical evidence for it. As I alluded to earlier, materialism may not be suited for discussion on the metaphysical scale.

Given that subatomic phenomena are floating bits of potential energy (uncertainty) which don't appear to have any certain characteristics until observed {quantum observational collapse), exactly what is the evidence for "materialism"?

Science has some degree of certainly that "mind" is physical based on studies of people with damaged brains, lacking various abilities. If the same certain part of the brain is removed, for instance, speech can be eliminated. Remove a different part of the brain and various emotions can be eliminated and this works for everyone the same way.

Apparently, this guy didn't get the memo.

But seriously, if not materialism, then what else is there? Is it more tenable?

Idealism - primacy of mind. I mean, if the root phenomena of all material has only "potential" characteristics until it is observed, is that not evidence for primacy of mind?

[Judicator]

"Suppose we have ten creatures competing for a scarce resource such as food, and suppose only one of these creatures (Bob) possesses accurate beliefs concerning the whereabouts of the food. If all we want is an explanation of Bob's immediate motor behavior, then we needn't appeal to the truth or falsehood of any of his beliefs. But if we want to know why Bob's behavior proves successful while his cohorts die out, then it clearly does matter that his behavior is generated by true beliefs."

Bob lived because he had reliable beliefs, while everyone else died. In survival situations, reliable beliefs matter, so evolution should favor the selection of reliable belief generating mechanisms.

Evolution predicts that cognitive mechanisms are adaptive in part because they generate desires corresponding to reproductive fitness and accurate representations that enable the organism to get around and satisfy those desires.

quoted from Naturalism defeated?: essays on ... - Google Books

[Meleagar]

Since we already know that at least some people have untrue beliefs, and behave in ways that do not correspond to reproductive fitness, and have untrue maps of the world, then we factually know that materialist descriptions such as unguided (by deliberacy) evolution do not necessarily produce true correlations. Any process which fails to produce deliberate or necessary true correlations fails to produce coherent true statements, as argued above.

[Judicator]

Since we already know that at least some people have untrue beliefs, and behave in ways that do not correspond to reproductive fitness, and have untrue maps of the world, then we factually know that materialist descriptions such as unguided (by deliberacy) evolution do not necessarily produce true correlations. Any process which fails to produce deliberate or necessary true correlations fails to produce coherent true statements, as argued above.

But we know evolution selects in favor of truth, so evolution will reliably generate true beliefs. So materialism suggests that beliefs generated by evolution are reliably true. So the materialist could be 99.999....% sure (reliable, but not necessarily true) that materialism is true and his belief generating mechanisms are reliable.

[ItsDarts]

Because to be coherent they'd have to be recognizable or understandable as a set of truthful statements. If they are being proposed by chance, and accepted by chance, they aren't being recognized as truthful statements; they would just be statements that happen to be true, and which happen to be accepted, with no means to deliberately or necessarily validate them.

I'm not following you at all, can you give us examples?

Given that subatomic phenomena are floating bits of potential energy (uncertainty) which don't appear to have any certain characteristics until observed {quantum observational collapse), exactly what is the evidence for "materialism"?

The definition of materialism alone is the evidence. Unless you know of and have evidence for another reality without physicality?

Apparently, this guy didn't get the memo.

Yeah I saw this before, its a poor example.

"If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side"

This is saying that given enough time, the brain can rewire itself. Also not that his capacity is somewhat diminished. This speaks nothing of a brain that is suddenly damaged or a brain that never developed completely from birth and only helps to validate that mind is material.

Idealism - primacy of mind. I mean, if the root phenomena of all material has only "potential" characteristics until it is observed, is that not evidence for primacy of mind?

No, everything that existed prior to mind has existed. Mind didn't come into existence until recently (in the cosmological time scale). Philosophers of Idealism didn't (don't?) have a grasp of reality itself in my opinion. This is apparent when one looks out into the universe and discovers a new galaxy or star, who's light appeared here prior to minds existence. Idealism fails in light of cosmology and physical science. You will need to show how the light from a galaxy didn't exist prior to an observer. I find Idealism to be fluffy pretentious thought experiments that may have made sense prior to the advancements of science. I'll ask you the same question you asked me..... "why believe it, if there is no way to logically support it?

This is nothing more than the old "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes and can be verified by recording devices that have no mind. The universe (reality) existed prior to mind and the evidence is for the taking by looking through a cheap telescope and seeing your first galaxy, 60 million light years away. It doesn't take a mind to record that light, all it takes is a camera.

[Meleagar]

I'm not following you at all, can you give us examples?

An example of chance producing incoherence? I gave one in the O.P. about the monkeys.

The definition of materialism alone is the evidence. Unless you know of and have evidence for another reality without physicality?

So you have no evidence that materialism is true other than an assertion that it is true? Without a mechanism by which anyone can discern true statments? Could anything be more incoherent?

This is saying that given enough time, the brain can rewire itself. Also not that his capacity is somewhat diminished. This speaks nothing of a brain that is suddenly damaged or a brain that never developed completely from birth and only helps to validate that mind is material.

This is classic confirmation bias. Look at what you just did; you provided a theoretical prediction that the brain is the cause of consciousness because if the brain is damaged, or otherwise impaired, it results in a corresponding effect to the mind. When I give you evidence of a severely deformed brain to the point of 50-75% of it is missing entirely, you shrug it off as inconsequential. I suppose that if I linke once again to the NDE study published in the Lancet that describes a case where a patient that had flatline brain activity successfully reported on events that transpired while they were in brain flatline, you would find a way of shrugging that off as well.

In other words, you are proposing evidence for your case, but denying precisely contrary evidence as such, inventing ad hoc explanations. You can't have it both ways; if evidence of an impaired brain generating an impaired mind is evidence that mind is caused by the brain, then evidence of an impaired brain not impairing the mind is evidence that the mind is not caused the brain.

No, everything that existed prior to mind has existed. Mind didn't come into existence until recently (in the cosmological time scale).

Please support that assertion.

Philosophers of Idealism didn't (don't?) have a grasp of reality itself in my opinion. This is apparent when one looks out into the universe and discovers a new galaxy or star, who's light appeared here prior to minds existence.

Exactly how would you argue that anything "actually" existed before mind existed, other than as an inference from the materialist perspective?

Idealism fails in light of cosmology and physical science.

Asserting it is not arguing or demonstrating it. You're just asserting that mind (btw, in idealism, a god would be considered the ultimate "mind").

You will need to show how the light from a galaxy didn't exist prior to an observer.

The fact that subatomic phenomena are apparently indeterminate until observed argues that the universe cannot have any meaningful form or history whatsoever until an observer is available to collapse potential into actualized states.

I find Idealism to be fluffy pretentious thought experiments that may have made sense prior to the advancements of science. I'll ask you the same question you asked me..... "why believe it, if there is no way to logically support it?

It is logically supportable. In fact, idealism is the only reason one can expect to make any truthful statements via logic whatsoever, as I've shown in the O.P.

This is nothing more than the old "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes and can be verified by recording devices that have no mind.

Uh, no. The verification of the sound wouldn't occur until an agent with a mind listened to the recorder. This inserts mind into the process.

The universe (reality) existed prior to mind and the evidence is for the taking by looking through a cheap telescope and seeing your first galaxy, 60 million light years away. It doesn't take a mind to record that light, all it takes is a camera

Again, you seem to not realize that under idealism, "god" is expressed as a mind.

[Meleagar]

But we know evolution selects in favor of truth, so evolution will reliably generate true beliefs.

How do we know that?