Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#11

Post by quickthrower2 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #3

No. If you start from a materialist position (including from the modern scientific position), then you are inevitably faced with some kind of reductionism. If all that exists is matter and the laws of physics, then all you can be is matter that obeys the laws of physics - nothing more. You're just a collection of atoms that obey the laws of atomic physics, assembled into molecules that obey the laws of biochemistry,…

This argument requires a very human centric view of the universe. But it doesn’t address: at what point of complexity from microbe to ant to rat to dog to chimp/dolphin to human do we start getting the higher qualities. Is it only humans who can do love, personality and so on?

Also you can have all those qualities such as love in a materialist view as emergent properties.

And who says we have free will? Or at at least will that is decoupled somehow from the matter that we are made of.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#12

Post by Dracophoenix »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4
ofalkaed wrote: post #2

Materialism allows for a creator and spirits and ghosts and fairies, it just says that if they exist they are not supernatural, just natural.

The rest of what you say is true, but not a creator. If the creator created the material universe, then the creator is not material. If the material universe was there first, then the creator isn't really a creator , just some kind of organizer.

> If the creator created the material universe, then the creator is not material.

If the universe was created by a lone demiurge, then creator and the created would both be material.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#13

Post by Dracophoenix »

ofalkaed wrote: post #7
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of what you say is true, but not a creator. If the creator created the material universe, then the creator is not material. If the material universe was there first, then the creator isn't really a creator , just some kind of organizer.

So where did the creator come from? Why does the creator of our universe have to be bound by our universe? Being creator suggests there is more which materialism does not rule out, just says that the more is not supernatural and that we come from the same stuff as it, that we were created in its image as the Christians would say.

> Being creator suggests there is more which materialism does not rule out, just says that the more is not supernatural and that we come from the same stuff as it

This was Spinoza's position on creation.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#15

Post by preordained »

No. I'm not sure I understand either the appeal or the intuition behind that position. The logic, I can grasp, once you've "gone in" and accepted a premise that we're in some multiverse where the uninhibited numbers make a simulation like ours, so to speak, inevitable. Why that's the type of premise that speaks to one, is beyond me. Okay, maybe I was wrong just now, I think I do understand. It's about not being beholden to anything. Not a creator, or a design. You might be meaningless if you're a random happenstance, but there is no blueprint or conductor guiding your destiny. There is an impulse to associate meaning with tyranny, because if you are meant for anything, it has been without your say.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#16

Post by p1esk »

cpersona wrote: post #10
p1esk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we create a VR world with intelligent beings then we are the creator for the beings, and both we and the beings are material. Right?

We would not be material or natural to the inhabitants of that VR world. They couldn’t prove our existence.

The relationship between the VR beings and the creator (us), would fall into one of the three scenarios:

1. They don't know about anything outside of their VR world. They could have made up fairy tales or religions about what could have possibly created their world. They would be completely unaware about our existence. This could be our case - we ourselves don't know if we're living in a simulation.

2. They have been able to infer enough from the peculiarities of their reality to suspect they are living in a simulation, and that there are beings which have created the simulation.

3. They know they live in a simulated world, built by us. We made contact with them and told them all about our world and how we made their world.

You can argue that, in the first scenario, something that "does not exist" is not "material" or "natural". But this would be strictly their ignorance or misconceptions. It does not change the reality that both we, and them, are material beings. In fact, if you insist on this argument, you might already be assuming that our world is not entirely material, because it would follow that our subjective opinions define reality.

Scenarios 2 and 3 clearly allow the possibility of them perceiving us as equally material beings.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#18

Post by ddgflorida »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #3

No. If you start from a materialist position (including from the modern scientific position), then you are inevitably faced with some kind of reductionism. If all that exists is matter and the laws of physics, then all you can be is matter that obeys the laws of physics - nothing more. You're just a collection of atoms that obey the laws of atomic physics, assembled into molecules that obey the laws of biochemistry,…

Agreed, thanks for the thoughtful answer.

Re: Ask HN: Are You a Materialist?

#19

Post by wruza »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #3

No. If you start from a materialist position (including from the modern scientific position), then you are inevitably faced with some kind of reductionism. If all that exists is matter and the laws of physics, then all you can be is matter that obeys the laws of physics - nothing more. You're just a collection of atoms that obey the laws of atomic physics, assembled into molecules that obey the laws of biochemistry,…

I’m completely okay with all the things you listed and chaotically deterministic (so to say) physics of our bodies, brains included.

But that doesn't match our experience

Which to me is just a part of inner workings. Confusion, delusion, perception shifts, all looped back to ourselves. Brain does many hard jobs to produce what we call subjective reality. You don’t even need love (not sure which role it ought to play here) to see that it’s all an inner mirage.

Post reply on HN