Materialism is absurd

[Someone here]

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

 

"Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter". 

 

“Everything is matter.” Who says so? I, the subject. And if there were no subject who says so, there would be no one for whom matter matters, and therefore there would be no sense in saying that there is anything at all, because being and its meaning are not separable from each other. Nothingness of meaning means nothingness of being. So there is at least (1) the subject's (2) consciousness of (3) matter, instead of matter only. All three components are necessary to make a satisfactory ontological picture of reality.

That I, as the subject, could be somehow reducible to my objects, or that my consciousness of matter could be somehow reducible to what I am conscious of, is absurd.

Matter matters to me, but nothing matters to matter.

So by doing a simple phenomenological analysis of the being of matter we find that materialism is a self-contradictory position.

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here yeah, materialism is like half of a duality. 

It's like saying, 'this cup has an outside, but no inside'. 

 

[Someone here]

Yup.

 On the other hand.. Some argue that All empirical evidence of consciousness is based upon material. Specifically it is neural material. Without it there is nothing of the kind.
So I think even if we might want to extend our understanding of matter to include the unique organisations of matter to include such things as information, data, and consciousness. There would still be two substances. Matter AND consciousness. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here consciousness and matter are the same thing. 

Where is the the Universe? It's in your head, you see? 

 

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle I think all phenomena of consciousness have material correlates, but this does not mean that consciousness can be reduced to material processes. It is more like an instrumental relationship. And the subject itself has no material correlates.

We can say that the subject and its consciousness of the world is ontologically fundamental, but the material world is the functional basis of the subject's concrete existence.

The concepts of consciousness cannot be reduced to the concepts of physics. Only correlations between them can be found.

[Mason Riggle]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

And the subject itself has no material correlates.
 

If you believe this, smash your material skull open and see what happens to the subject of that experience. 

[LastThursday]

Materialism is an emergent property of consciousness.

The only small quibble is that "consciousness" is in the same category as "electron": a thought form that neatly explains the phenomena of experience.

You could say consciousness is everything or God but that just shifs the blame on to the word "everything" or "God". The elephant in the room is that consciousness is inexplicable: it cannot be described in its fullness. Materialism is at least explicable and suprisingly useful. If consciousness cannot be communicated then how do we then agree between ourselves that consciousness is the bedrock of the world? Or do we take a leap of faith?

[mandyjw]

9 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

The elephant in the room is that consciousness is inexplicable: it cannot be described in its fullness. Materialism is at least explicable and suprisingly useful. 

I would say materialism is not explicable or useful, because there is no "body" that it is explicable or useful for. It just creates the very notion of use and waste, worth and worthless. 

11 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Or do we take a leap of faith?

There's no where to leap for faith itself, it's already right here. 

[Nahm]

7 hours ago, Someone here said:

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

"Materialism:

?

[Someone here]

16 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

If you believe this, smash your material skull open and see what happens to the subject of that experience. 

refutation of consciousness being reducible to matter in it's simplest form - there is no sign of consciousness outside of oneself.

It is impossible to discover consciousness in matter, hence any searching for it would only be an act of cutting meat. So digging out someone else's brain with a spoon or scalpel is not altering consciousness.

Consciousness, self awareness, or better addressed simply as sensation, excludes the possibility of others existing. For another to exist, there would have to be the sensation of others' sensation. I wouldn't even call this subjectivity, because sensation is all-inclusive of reality. Meaning all that is real is sensed, so what external influence is there to make sensation only subjective? Any idea of objectivity supposes there are other sensations outside of the sensations known, which means a reality apart from reality. An impossibility.

Obviously, if senses are only our own, reality is only our own, consciousness cannot be found in matter.

Obvious retort - what if I stab myself in the head or take a pill? Isn't consciousness affected through matter then?

No, there is no experience of matter in these acts, only sensation. Through sensation there can only be sensation. The limit of a thing is another of the same type. The limit of a feeling is another feeling. Any attempts at altering consciousness, is a change in sensations. From the swallowing of a pill to the dizziness in your head, you only feel.

The idea that consciousness can be reducible to matter is absurd because consciousness is not found in other people. Of course this is only one of the reasons, I listed others in two earlier posts.

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here I'm not suggesting consciousness is reducible to matter.  This is a straw man.  I said consciousness and matter are the same thing. 

[Mason Riggle]

43 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The idea that consciousness can be reducible to matter is absurd because consciousness is not found in other people. 

You are 'other people'.. you're all of it.. and that's where consciousness is found. 

[LastThursday]

For the record:

 

[Mason Riggle]

@LastThursday yes.  It is a mistake to think 'appearances in consciousness' and 'consciousness' are two separate things.  One, not two.  There are no layers to it. It's direct. 

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

I said consciousness and matter are the same thing. 

Your response meets my empirical requirements. If that is not good enough for you, it is not relevant. We live in a mental world and all evidence of matter derives from clearly mental phenomenon (qualia :consciousness). 

Please demonstrate matter. 
What do you mean by it? And please show evidence of it without the presence of consciousness. 

It's not that consciousness =matter 

There is simply only consciousness and nothing else. If that's your point then we agree. 

 

[ivankiss]

'Matter' is just a slower rate of frequency/vibration.

Consciousness.

[Mason Riggle]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Please demonstrate matter. 

Please demonstrate anything.

This conversation is just as 'absurd' as matter.. and yet here it is. 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle

[The Lucid Dreamer]

Trying to say that there can be an object without a subject is about as dumb as saying that there can be up without down.  

[blankisomeone]

Nothing with -ism at the end is true?