Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Idealism or Materialism?
Thread: Idealism or Materialism? This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted May 08, 2013 03:47 AM

Quote:
They are both very much alive. Although since 20th century philosophy kind of lost its weight to science (philosophers as influential as Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx etc etc don't exist anymore) and science is basically materialistic.

I don't agree with that.  Karl Popper is one of the most influential philosophers of science ever, and he died just in the 1990s.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 03:51 AM
Edited by artu at 03:55, 08 May 2013.

But he specializes in scientific method. Which kind of backs up my opinion. He does not have a mega-theory like the others.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted May 08, 2013 03:55 AM

I don't know what "mega-theories" means, but you didn't mention anything of the kind.  You insinuated science has killed philosophy, but I don't see how that is so.  Science is science.  Philosophy is philosophy.  How can one kill the other?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 04:04 AM
Edited by artu at 04:23, 08 May 2013.

I didn't say "killed or dead" I said lost weight. Mega-Theories are theories in philosophy that are so wide in spectrum, other sub-philosophies emerge from them, like from Dialectic Materialism came up Leninism, Anarchism, Maoism, all revisionist schools of socialism or from Descartes' the Cartesian logic and a whole bunch of rationalist sub-schools emerged... etc etc. And it's off the track to say I insinuated philosophy is dead when my first sentence is "They (idealism and materialism) are both very much ALIVE."  

The term is used as Mega Teori in Turkish, so I translated as Mega Theory, but the english  term may be different.

Edit: Frame Theory maybe, do you use Frame Theory in such a sense?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 09:05 AM

Well, the thing is, that the scientific method is a pragmatic, practical instrument to gain insights and knowledge (although it wouldn't be possible without mathematics, and mathematics is arguably no science in that sense which means that - for me - the scientific method is in itself based on something else), and the scientific method and science as such is completely satisfied with that.

Philosophically, it's empiricism, an epistemological view, that is the important thing, and that has to do with how we gain insights (and not what the world is, ultimately).

Materialism is dead, since it already has been proven wrong. It has been replaced by Physicalism (ironically, materialism as a philosophy has been sharing the fate of most, if not all, physical theories who have been refined, adjustered or even been changed completely over the course of time, simply because our insights based on the physical are changing, so logically any philosophy based on that except empiricism would also).

In my opinion there are some problems with physicalism. One fundamental "problem" seems to be that "mind" or "conscience" will have to be defined by their physical properties as well - if physicalism is right, then the mind must be completely describable.
There are others, but that's enough here.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 04:07 PM

As I said before I consider empiricism a sub-category under materialism, I see why you don't but it would be a long discussion and today is not a good day for me so I'll leave it at that.

The shift from materialism to physicalism  is just a semantic gesture, a nuance caused by modern science and again, this part is still very important: the immaterial of idealism and the immaterial of modern science refer to very different concepts. When you read modern idealists like Buadrillard, they are not trying to base their ideas on Quantum or Relativity, it's the apologists of religions who do that.

And of course idealism didn't go through the semantic shift materialism did because its relationship with science (falsifiable knowledge) is not that close. Considering that a "strength" is like a flat earth society member telling us, hah you changed your astronomy many times through the centuries but mine stays intact.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 08, 2013 06:02 PM

Quote:
Question: Would you agree that if materialism is right we should be able to "decode" the mind and the consciousness and "build" an artificial one? Not now, obviously, but in fairly short time, let's say within the next 50 years, if nothing goes brutally wrong with the species.
And yould you also agree that the inability to do so would hurt the materialistic point quite seriously?
If the mind is just a material processor which deals with information that can be found in the material world, I see no reason why we won't be able to "reconstruct" it with information that can be found in the material world and if that information can be organized at will. But not necessarily in the next few decades. If an AI proves to be thoroughly impossible to create - not in 50 years but at all - then the materialism will have issues, yes.
Then again, what "kind" or mind will satisfy you? Will a self-aware computer do the trick? Or you need an exact copy of the human mind, however it works?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 06:09 PM

Quote:
If the mind is just a material processor which deals with information that can be found in the material world, I see no reason why we won't be able to "reconstruct" it with information that can be found in the material world and if that information can be organized at will. But not necessarily in the next few decades. If an AI proves to be thoroughly impossible to create - not in 50 years but at all - then the materialism will have issues, yes.
Then again, what "kind" or mind will satisfy you? Will a self-aware computer do the trick? Or you need an exact copy of the human mind, however it works?


Being able to reproduce it is a tricky field, I think. Yes, "in theory" it should be reproducable but then put aside something as sophisticated as a mind, we cant even reproduce "stuff" from thin air. We know that the elements are material for sure, can we reproduce them out of thin air? It would require to repeat extreme conditions of great length even if you got the formula.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted May 08, 2013 06:31 PM
Edited by Seraphim at 18:36, 08 May 2013.

Quote:

Then again, what "kind" or mind will satisfy you? Will a self-aware computer do the trick? Or you need an exact copy of the human mind, however it works?


If a person goes on a coma, where is his mind? A medical condition already debunks idealism to its very core. There is no need to recreate the human mind to an AI if there is already proof that the human mind is material based.
Epilepsy is also one of those interesting conditions where a part of the brain lights up and generates involutary impulses, causing epileptic seizures. Of course, during those seizures, the victim remember nothing.
So I wonder how idealists explain these conditions. Also, when people are exposed to alcohol and drugs in a very young age, millions of nerves die.
After those people age, they have poor memory and mental skills compared to people of the same age. This is idiot proof evidence that the human mind is completely matter based.
Hallucinogenic drugs also produce impressive results that alter senses and cause the drugged person to experience stuff that is not happening.

As for AI creation, if science finds a way to create Quantum computers. creating AIs should not be a big deal as the major hindrance of creating a human-like an ai is processing power and algorithms. There is no theoretical boundary of making an AI.
Self learing programs are already a reality.

Explaining seizuresLink

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 07:26 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Question: Would you agree that if materialism is right we should be able to "decode" the mind and the consciousness and "build" an artificial one? Not now, obviously, but in fairly short time, let's say within the next 50 years, if nothing goes brutally wrong with the species.
And yould you also agree that the inability to do so would hurt the materialistic point quite seriously?
If the mind is just a material processor which deals with information that can be found in the material world, I see no reason why we won't be able to "reconstruct" it with information that can be found in the material world and if that information can be organized at will. But not necessarily in the next few decades. If an AI proves to be thoroughly impossible to create - not in 50 years but at all - then the materialism will have issues, yes.
Then again, what "kind" or mind will satisfy you? Will a self-aware computer do the trick? Or you need an exact copy of the human mind, however it works?
I would be satisfied with some kind of Cylons or Terminators.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 07:44 PM

And before I forget it - if materialism isn't dead, where are its supporters? Where are its thinkers?
Are there any noteworthy materialist philosophs born after WW 2 or younger?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 08:20 PM
Edited by artu at 20:26, 08 May 2013.

I didn't check birth dates but here are guys I consider quite contemporary, important and materialist: Theodor Adorno, Jean Paul Sartre, Karl Popper, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault. Also, the materialist wing kind of merged with social sciences, it's very hard to separate these "interdisciplinary humanities" from philosophy at times.

I must add, since there usually aren't 25 year-old philosophers around, the born post-WW2 limit is a little odd. (Or I'm getting old and rusty.) Who that young, would you consider an important idealist?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 08:56 PM

Sarte? Born 1905, existentialist, definitely not materialist.

Adorno, born 1903. Definitely a disciple of Hegel and Marx (not a a paradox). For him, HEIDEGGER was his opponent, the one he was against, and if I'm not wrong, Heidegger is proposing the way back to metaphysics. Not a good example for a materialist.

Chomsky. If you mean Noam, born 1928, he's one of my favorites, albeit not as a philosopher, but as a linguist and left thinker. Great mind. Anti-behaviourist - and when it comes to psychology, behaviourism is equal to a kind of pragmatic materialism.

Popper, born 1902. I didn't like him when I was young. He's no materialist at all, his (own) philosopy is "critical rationalism", not materialist at all.

Foucault, born 1926, is no materialist either, but, if anything, in the tradition of Nietzsche.

Anyways, your last four are more or less sociological philosophs who are interested in society, not in cosmology. Sartre is interestd in the human subject, in individual life - existentialism is beyond the materialism/idealism controverse, because Sartre doesn't care wbout that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 09:17 PM
Edited by artu at 21:17, 08 May 2013.

Existentialism has a materialistic and idealistic diversion in itself. Sartre is one of the materialists. (Jaspers is an idealist for example.)

The others would all categorize under materialism OPPOSED to idealism. That is, they consider an objective (in the sense I use the word) reality. And what exactly are you looking for when you say cosmological materialist, do you expect them to make statements like in Ancient Greece?

I know they are pre-born WW2, that was my point when I teased about 25-year old philosophers around.

I don't see you naming a "great cosmological idealist" who is 60 years-old...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 09:32 PM
Edited by JollyJoker at 21:39, 08 May 2013.

None of them is opposed to idealism - they are not even interested in that question the way it is discussed here, except that the middle 3 are - as I am - historical materialists (based on the capitalism/communism schism in their time). Foucault, however, is an opponent of Marx. The existentialistic philosophy, well. I find it difficult to bring that into connection with our issue, and I would like you to point out the materialistic aspects in Sartre's philosophy.

EDIT: No, idealissm has been resting a while - but that's because that question hasn't been on the forefront of philosophical interest in the 20th cdentury. Physical science has been too perplexing, so philosophy has been turning to other questions.

This question has become more or less a question of how physics is interpreted.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 09:43 PM
Edited by artu at 21:44, 08 May 2013.

Quote:
The existentialistic philosophy, well. I find it difficult to bring that into connection with our issue, and I would like you to point out the materialistic aspects in Sartre's philosophy.


Sartre's existentialism is totally based on the perspective that we live in a meaningless, Godless, random universe in itself and if we want to bring meaning into our life the only way of doing it is our own actions and that's what makes human different than all other existing things. A rock is a rock, a tree is a tree but only humans can decide what they will be. For that distinction to work, the universe can't have a mind of its own.

And I repeat, in 20th century the cosmological discussions shifted to the field(s) of science. That is not a collapse in materialism, actually it may be read as the opposite. I'm still waiting for your young cosmological idealists...


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 09:55 PM

God, no!

For Sartre there is no God - only the human being (who is more or less god themselves). But lonely.
Sartre started as an idealistic philosopher of the mind and became a humanist.
(Keep in mind that idealism does NOT mean there is a god or an "overmind". The human mind suffices.)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 10:09 PM
Edited by artu at 22:10, 08 May 2013.

I don't see how that contradicts with what I said. Let me ask you this way, why do you think he is not a materialist? Don't you think to define universe as a meaningless entity by itself you have to be a materialist as opposed to idealist? (Unless your alternative is "Our subjective reality is all we can know" and Sartre's was definitely not.)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 08, 2013 10:54 PM

I think that Sartre was first and foremost a humanist. I don't see how he can be catogorized either materialist or idealist, because it's of no interest to him what is what as long as it's human.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
posted September 03, 2016 08:05 PM
Edited by frostysh at 20:07, 03 Sep 2016.

I have not red the entire thread, I think I will, and I think I will find there a hell lot amount of the boring stuff, but I have hope that there will be something interesting for myself.

The frostysh' opinion about the Materialism/Idealism: The entire poll is wrong, Materialism and Idealism is both necessary for an effective existing of the humans, of course Idealism have lose some position through centuries but also it is have obtain a new forms.

I.e. the Red Ones killed 1/3 of their own folks, and they was focused typo on the Materialism, regardless of the all ideals of humanity... They even create a frigging "Science" that denied the idealism

I.e.2 the Nazi Ones killed millions of peoples, just because they was not so ideal as nazi ones, or just taking their places in the Nazie native areas of living (I have a bad humor, I know it..). Regardless of the all ideals of the humanity, and even materialism that their Eugenics, and Racial Genetics is a nonsense (Suddenly, I think "normal" Genetic appeared only in the 1950AD or something near.)

As for myself I need the both, the idealism like ideas (And I am even using the materialism to check this "ideal" , the ideals, to low the possibility to be foolish and tricked off by some nonsense), and of course the materialism.

I.e. the Idealism - Justice. The Materialism - exposing the propaganda, and avoiding a hard damage to the mind because of it.

Of course the Philosophy it is little bit different from the Science, and mean, perhaps this Philosopher were smart like the Aristotelian, but I have doubts that on their works you can build a frigging Nuclear Power Plant.
And of course Philosophy has lose it's position through a centuries, but still I think the Philosophy is truly necessary for hte Science itself, in example. Because the Philosophy is learning you how to think, is directing you at beginning, and so on. I see no Science without a Philosophy.

And of course, no one will restrict you to be a Scientist and the Philosopher, or a Philosopher and the Scientist simultaneously .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0570 seconds