Instigator / Pro
14
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#522
Materialism Is Sound
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
5
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Description
===Full Resolution===
Materialism is sound.
==================
=====Definitions=====
materialism - a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations of, or results of, or contingent on matter or any spatiotemporal variables, spacetime itself, massless particles, quantum fields, or quantum fluctuations and their forces.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism
Both Pro and Con agreed to this definition before the debate, so pointing out that it's not exactly the same as the definition provided at the link is irrelevant.
The source was used as a guide for the definitions and both debaters and voters will use these definitions.
sound - based on valid reason or good judgement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sound#h69867460970160
================
Round 1
Intro
Thanks for accepting the debate Con.
Let's have ourselves a discussion about reality.
Materialism
That which exists is either physical/material itself, or contingent on the physical/material.
Everything from the stars to the planets to the planet's inhabitants to the gas in atmospheres are made of at least particles/radiation/energy in some form; they're all physical themselves.
Other things that exist like thought, love, the mind, compassion, consciousness, intelligence, and happiness are constructs contingent on the physical brain, physical neurons, and other physical neurological substrates.
While not all existing things are made of elements/particles/radiation, they are at least contingent on such.
So, all things are either comprised of/contingent on:
1. Particles
or
2. Radiation
or
3. Energy
or
4. Spacetime
Supernature
I'd love to refute this concept, but I have no idea what it means.
People tell me that supernatural things exist, or that supernatural events occur, but no one's ever been able to provide me with an example that, if it actually exists, isn't reducible to materialism, and no one's ever been able to clearly explain what "above" or "beyond" nature really means.
I often ask that if there's this unexplained "beyond" or "above" nature, then what do you call something that's equally unexplained as "behind" or "below" nature?
Subnatural?
Infranatural?
Is subnaturalism any more/less valid than supernaturalism?
If Con wishes to endorse the position that there are things *not* comprised of or *not* contingent on the physical/material, then I reject this position due to a lack of demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions that would indicate an absence of the physical/material.
Conclusion
I simply maintain that all things, constructs like love and thought included, can be reduced to the physical/material, which is demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions within the domain of physical nature.
I fail to see this with any ideas that espouse immateriality.
On to Con...
I would like to thank MagicAintReal for this debate. I’ve been wanting to do a debate on materialism for a while now. I agree to Magic’s definitions and terms of the debate.
Contention 1: Immaterial Things Exist
P1: If immaterial things exist, then materialism is false.
P2: Immaterial things exist
C1: Therefore, materialism is false
I’m sure Pro will have no problem with P1. If there are things that are immaterial, then that automatically refutes materialism. There are, however, things that do exist that are immaterial. Namely the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics. These cannot be accounted for by purely physical means.
These laws are transcendent, that is they do not depend on the human mind. If they did, then they would be subjective, but they are not. They are objectively true regardless of who you are and how you think.
If you are familiar with the ontological argument, then you are familiar with the world semantics:
The actual world - the one that we live in
A possible world - a world that is logically possible
An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible
The statement “a fire breathing dragon exists” is true in some possible worlds because it is non contradictory in terms; however, the statement “a married bachelor exists” is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist in the actual world or any possible worlds. If something is true in every possible world, then it cannot be dependent on particles, radiation, energy, or spacetime.
Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world.
Contention 2: Free will
P1: If free will exists, then materialism is false
P2: Free will exists
C1: Therefore, materialism is false
My opponent has already agreed to P2 in our other debate so I’m not going to spend time defending P2. The major premise is what I need to explain. If everything is dependent on the physical world, then free will is impossible. If all what we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice. I would actually go a step further and say that if all what we are is made up of those chemical reactions, then it is impossible to trust our brain or our thoughts. This is contradictory because without being able to trust our brain there can be no logical discourse like the one we are having now.
Intellect and will are immaterial powers as Michael Egor points out:
Let us imagine, as a counterfactual, that the intellect is a material power of the mind. As such, the judgment that a course of action is good, which is the basis on which an act of the will would be done, would entail "Good" having a material representation in the brain. But how exactly could Good be represented in the brain? The concept of Good is certainly not a particular thing — a Good apple, or a Good car — that might have some sort of material manifestation in the brain. Good is a universal, not a particular. In fact the judgment that a particular thing is Good presupposes a concept of Good, so it couldn’t explain the concept of Good. Good, again, is a universal, not a particular.
So how could a universal concept such as Good be manifested materially in the brain?
The only answer possible from the materialist perspective, it would seem, is that the concept of Good must be an engram, coded in some fashion in the brain. Perhaps Good is a particular assembly of proteins, or dendrites, or a specific electrochemical gradient in a specific location in the brain.
But the materialist is not home yet. Because in order for Good to be an engram in the brain, the Good engram must be coded in some fashion. How could Good be coded? A clump of protein of a specific shape two mm from the tip of the left hippocampus? Obviously there’s nothing that actually means Good about that particular protein in that particular location — one engram would be as Good as another — so we would require another engram to decode the hippocampal engram for Good, so it would mean Good, and not just be a clump of protein. Yet that engram for the code for the engram of Good would itself have to have some representation of Good in order for it to mean that it signifies the code for the Good engram, which would require another engram for the engram for the Good engram, ad nauseam.
In short, any engram in the brain that coded for Good would presuppose the concept of Good in order to establish the code for Good. So Good, from a materialist perspective on the mind, must be an infinite regress of Good engrams. Engrams all the way down, so to speak, which of course is no engrams at all.
Conclusion
There are things that are immaterial that are not contingent on materialist concepts. Free will is impossible in a materialist world and thus we should reject materialism.
Contention 1: Immaterial Things Exist
P1: If immaterial things exist, then materialism is false.
P2: Immaterial things exist
C1: Therefore, materialism is false
I’m sure Pro will have no problem with P1. If there are things that are immaterial, then that automatically refutes materialism. There are, however, things that do exist that are immaterial. Namely the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics. These cannot be accounted for by purely physical means.
These laws are transcendent, that is they do not depend on the human mind. If they did, then they would be subjective, but they are not. They are objectively true regardless of who you are and how you think.
If you are familiar with the ontological argument, then you are familiar with the world semantics:
The actual world - the one that we live in
A possible world - a world that is logically possible
An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible
The statement “a fire breathing dragon exists” is true in some possible worlds because it is non contradictory in terms; however, the statement “a married bachelor exists” is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist in the actual world or any possible worlds. If something is true in every possible world, then it cannot be dependent on particles, radiation, energy, or spacetime.
Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world.
Contention 2: Free will
P1: If free will exists, then materialism is false
P2: Free will exists
C1: Therefore, materialism is false
My opponent has already agreed to P2 in our other debate so I’m not going to spend time defending P2. The major premise is what I need to explain. If everything is dependent on the physical world, then free will is impossible. If all what we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice. I would actually go a step further and say that if all what we are is made up of those chemical reactions, then it is impossible to trust our brain or our thoughts. This is contradictory because without being able to trust our brain there can be no logical discourse like the one we are having now.
Intellect and will are immaterial powers as Michael Egor points out:
Let us imagine, as a counterfactual, that the intellect is a material power of the mind. As such, the judgment that a course of action is good, which is the basis on which an act of the will would be done, would entail "Good" having a material representation in the brain. But how exactly could Good be represented in the brain? The concept of Good is certainly not a particular thing — a Good apple, or a Good car — that might have some sort of material manifestation in the brain. Good is a universal, not a particular. In fact the judgment that a particular thing is Good presupposes a concept of Good, so it couldn’t explain the concept of Good. Good, again, is a universal, not a particular.
So how could a universal concept such as Good be manifested materially in the brain?
But the materialist is not home yet. Because in order for Good to be an engram in the brain, the Good engram must be coded in some fashion. How could Good be coded? A clump of protein of a specific shape two mm from the tip of the left hippocampus? Obviously there’s nothing that actually means Good about that particular protein in that particular location — one engram would be as Good as another — so we would require another engram to decode the hippocampal engram for Good, so it would mean Good, and not just be a clump of protein. Yet that engram for the code for the engram of Good would itself have to have some representation of Good in order for it to mean that it signifies the code for the Good engram, which would require another engram for the engram for the Good engram, ad nauseam.
In short, any engram in the brain that coded for Good would presuppose the concept of Good in order to establish the code for Good. So Good, from a materialist perspective on the mind, must be an infinite regress of Good engrams. Engrams all the way down, so to speak, which of course is no engrams at all.
There are things that are immaterial that are not contingent on materialist concepts. Free will is impossible in a materialist world and thus we should reject materialism.
Round 2
Round 2
Thanks for that Con.
Also, thank you for supporting a debate culture, where, when the instigator requests that both debaters follow the rules of the debate, both debaters follow the rules of the debate.
It's sad that this is not the norm.
Also, thank you for supporting a debate culture, where, when the instigator requests that both debaters follow the rules of the debate, both debaters follow the rules of the debate.
It's sad that this is not the norm.
Con's P2
This is the whole shebang, I mean I've stated my case that all things are reducible to particles, so really, if Con cannot show that his P2 is true, "Immaterial things exist," this debate is a done deal, and one must vote Pro.
So Con brings up 4 things that he thinks are immaterial.
1. The Laws of Logic
The laws of logic are conceptual representations derived from physical limits.
The most logical statement is A = A, because in the physical world, two different entities cannot be the same entity, i.e. A can only be A and nothing else.
The most logical statement is A = A, because in the physical world, two different entities cannot be the same entity, i.e. A can only be A and nothing else.
Also, logic is merely an abstract organization of our thoughts which are themselves contingent on neurological substrates.
I'm saying that without neurological substrates, things like consciousness, intention, and intelligence cannot exist, and so the constructs like logic that we create to help organize our thoughts also cannot exist and are not transcendent.
All evidence indicates that consciousness, intention, and therefore intelligence require...
"neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors...the weight of evidence indicates that nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
All evidence indicates that neurological substrates originated from "the last common ancestor of all bilaterian animals, living 600–700 Mya, [which] probably had a diffusely organized nervous system."
So, because neurological substrates didn't show up on earth until 700 mya, neither did the laws of logic, which humans created to represent physical limits experienced by navigating the physical world and to organize thoughts into cohesive constituents.
Also, the idea that A must equal A could be vastly different in a universe with different physical properties.
"if you follow through with all the predictions quantum physics gives you, it allows multiple bubbles to form—one of which is our universe. These are sorts of fluctuations in the quantum foam. Quantum physics fluctuates all the time. But now the fluctuations are not just particles coming into and out of existence, which happens all the time. It’s whole universes coming into and out of existence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
This means that in other universes, the laws of physics could be vastly different based on how they formed in the quantum foam.The laws themselves are arbitrary and are contingent on the types of matter each universe brings forth.
2. The Laws of Mathematics
Mathematics are based on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts.
Again, shapes come from the particles that make up physical things, so if the particles were vastly different, the shapes would be vastly different, and the mathematics that represent these shapes would be vastly different.
Again, shapes come from the particles that make up physical things, so if the particles were vastly different, the shapes would be vastly different, and the mathematics that represent these shapes would be vastly different.
Quantity is a physical concept, i.e. how many particles are there?
If there were no countable entities, there would be no counting at all.
If there were no countable entities, there would be no counting at all.
Distance is merely the position of or the space between energy in the empty vacuum of space.
The empty space is itself a field of fluctuating quantum particles which are also physical.
Measuring this space, distance, is completely physical.
Measuring this space, distance, is completely physical.
3. The Laws of Physics
As mentioned earlier, the physical laws themselves are arbitrary and depending on the type of matter that arises with the particular universe, the laws themselves may be vastly different, and so are contingent on the type of matter available in each universe.
Also, without anything physical, physics could not study anything.
The laws of classical physics are also not transcendent as they break down at the quantum level.
Also, without anything physical, physics could not study anything.
The laws of classical physics are also not transcendent as they break down at the quantum level.
No physical things, no physics laws.
4. Free Will
"Physical determinism is a position that holds that all physical events occur as described by physical laws" and so as Con mentioned "If everything is dependent on the physical world, then free will is impossible. If all what we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice."
Con is correct, because physical laws are deterministic, there is no free will, so I need not hash over anything Con posited here, because according to physics, free will does not exist and Con agrees that given the laws of physics, free will is not possible.
Physical Determinism
Physical Determinism
Even if free will did exist, it would still be contingent on our neurological substrates.
Unless Con can show free will without neurological substrates.
Ok, on to you Con.
Unless Con can show free will without neurological substrates.
Ok, on to you Con.
Thank you, Pro! In this round, I will be responding first to my opponent's opening speech.
=== Pro's Construct ===
My opponent in round 1 argued that everything can be reduced to particles, radiation, energy, or spacetime.
My opponent writes "Other things that exist like thought, love, the mind, compassion, consciousness, intelligence, and happiness are constructs contingent on the physical brain, physical neurons, and other physical neurological substrates."
This I actually agree with (with the exception of consciousness). These things are certainly constructed by the human brain. Remove the physical brain and you remove those thoughts. My opponent is correct.
Supernature
The main definition of supernatural/supernature is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
To win this debate I actually do not have to prove that God exists or that there is such a thing as a supernatural realm. All that I have to do is prove that there are some things that cannot be reduced to matter. There are quite a few different philosophical views that are not dependent on the supernatural but are definitely anti-materialism. For example:
Immaterialism: the belief that material things have no objective existence.
Idealism: Idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence.
Dualism: The concept that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute
Though again I don't have to prove any of these theories correct, I just have to argue against materialism. With that, I will now defend my opening speech.
=== Con's Construct ===
Immaterial things exist
1. The Laws of Logic
Pro completely misunderstands my argument. Recall that I brought up modal logic and the types of worlds:
The actual world - the one that we live in
A possible world - a world that is logically possible
An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible
There is no possible world, either logically or scientifically, in which the statement A=A is false. If my opponent wishes to argue that states such a universe could exist, my opponent has the BOP to show how such a universe could exist. Consider the following
If p then q
p
Therefore q
If the first two statements are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. There is no possible world, logically or scientifically, where both premises are true but the conclusion is false.
My opponent argues that they are the product of the mind, but this too is false for one simple reason: they are transcendent. Matt Slick points out:
- Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
- Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
- They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true
- They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true
- Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
- They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
- They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
- Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
- People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
- If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
- People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
Another point I wish to note that my opponent disagrees that we have free will and agrees with the statement that "If all that we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice." But this can be applied to logic as well. This is the key question to pro: if all that we are is made up of chemicals, then how can we trust our brains and how can we trust logic? How is logical discourse even possible?
Thus we can conclude:
1) the laws of logic are transcendent - not dependent on thought
2) the laws of logic are self-authenticating
3) They are true in every possible world, thus do not depend on the physical laws of nature or the construct.
4) They are uncreated and uncaused
Thus materialism is false
2. Laws of Mathematics
My opponent is stunningly wrong in his assertion that math is based purely on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts. Mathematics certainly describes those things, but they are rooted in the transcedental laws of logic that goes back to my P1. Without logic, there cannot be any math. Indeed mathematic realism states that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind, thus they are discovered and not invented. Consequently, they cannot be dependent on the human mind.
To illustrate this let's consider the mathematical equation 2+2=3+1. These statements are both true. You add 2+2 and you get 4. Add 3+1 and you get 4. 4=4 is a true statement that goes back to the law of identity (A=A).
There is no possible world in which 2+2=/=4
I am running out of time and would like to save the defend my other arguments in the next round.
Over to pro!
Round 3
Round 3
Thanks for that Con.
Con agrees on constructs being reducible to neurological substrates, so I won't hash over those.
Con also mentions "To win this debate I actually do not have to prove that God exists or that there is such a thing as a supernatural realm" and I also agree with that, so I won't go over that bit either.
However, Con brings up some points of contention.
Logic, Physics, and Superposition
I had pointed out that logical principles like A = A are derived from human experience with the physical world and our need to organize our thoughts to aide us in reaching viable conclusions.
.
The problem is that we experience the world on the macro physics level, so not only is logic contingent on our brains and neurons, it's only applicable to our experience on a macro physics scale.
For instance,
Con claims:
"There is no possible world, either logically or scientifically, in which the statement A=A is false."
My response:
Yes there is, it's called the quantum world.
Quantum mechanics violates logic all of the time, because logic was created by macro-physical human brains and neurons that have experienced only macro physical events and phenomena.
In quantum mechanics, an atom can be both excited and not excited at the same time, it's called quantum superposition.
Con, can A = A, especially if A = not A?
If an atom can be both excited and not excited at the same time, how does the law of the excluded middle apply here?
The answer is that the quantum world IN JUST OUR UNIVERSE, not even considering other universe's physical laws, is not bound by logic at all and so A = A is false on the quantum level, and it should be obvious that if A = not A, then the law of the excluded middle is violated by atoms all of the time.
Then if you consider other universes and their different physical laws, their quantum physical laws would also be vastly different and so would not follow our neuronal logic either.
Ps and Qs
Con syllogizes:
"If p then qpTherefore qIf the first two statements are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. There is no possible world, logically or scientifically, where both premises are true but the conclusion is false."
My response:
Ok, let's imagine that:
P = Atom X is excited
Q = Atom X is not excited.
What you should see is that Q is the negation of P, and so if you run the syllogism it looks like:
If a particular atom is excited (P) it is also not excited (Q).
A particular atom is excited (P).
It is also not excited (Q).
The conclusions is P therefore not P.
This is a violation of the law of the excluded middle and thus the quantum world suffices as a world where both premises are true, but a contradiction arises in the conclusion, making it false.
This shows that the laws of logic aren't even transcendent enough to effect the quantum realm.
Boom.
Con's Other Thoughts
Con asks:
"if all that we are is made up of chemicals, then how can we trust our brains and how can we trust logic?"
My response:
By corroboration, external verification, and peer review.
We know that brains can accurately detect stimuli in the correct position in space.
"The components of the circuitry for orientation discrimination are recruited differently according to the position of the stimulus. In ventral occipital areas and putamen, rCBF differences between discrimination and detection are higher when central stimuli are used."
This demonstrates that our brains are reliable at accurately detecting stimulus.
This also indicates that our brains' observations are reliable, so if verification is occurring, our senses and logic derived from such can be trusted.
Con says:
"My opponent is stunningly wrong in his assertion that math is based purely on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts."
My response:
Mathematics is "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space," and Con admits here that they are all physical concepts.
Here's another definition of mathematics.
mathematics - the science of numbers, forms, amounts, and their relationships.
Cambridge Dictionary - mathematics
Cambridge Dictionary - mathematics
Mathematics is wholly contingent on the physical universe and if there are other universes, then the mathematics would be vastly different because the particles would be vastly different and would make different shapes, and the amount of particles that make up functional matter and energy would make different quantities of energy and matter which would change the numbers used to represent these quantities as well.
Conclusion
Con has yet to show anything that isn't reducible to or contingent on the material, and logic, math, and yes consciousness too are all properties of human neurological wherewithal.
Con?
Forfeited
Round 4
Conclusion
It's rather unfortunate that Con couldn't respond to my direct rebuttals to his points, but silence is compliance, so the quantum world proves that logic and math don't even transcend quantum mechanics, let alone the universe, and that all things that exist are reducible to the material.
Thanks for the debate Con, hopefully the votes will...materialize.
The end.
Sorry I got sick and couldn't finish. Would love to revisit this another time and would love feedback on the arguments presented.
Got that done with only 20 minutes to spare. Whew.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Np, it’s one of the most subtle aspects of debate is not to concede the burden of proof, nor use an argument that shifts it against your favor. It meant you ended up doing all the leg work, and Magic didn’t have to defend anything.
Thanks for the feedback
Don't worry man, RM was objectively defeated by you so you deserve to be where you are.
You're just better than he.
No I'm not.
and you are solely there because of ratoing-feeding thanks to one of these debaters grudge voting against me
I'm expecting a good argument. As of the time of this comment, both debaters are in the top 7.
He is going to semantically decimate you, I wouldn't be begging for it if I were you.
A little more than 12 hrs left