Materialist worldviews

[T'ai Chi]

Do materialists consider anything animate objects (as opposed to inanimate objects) or do they view everything as inanimate objects because everything is just composed of material.

For example, is a human an inanimate object?
A plant?
Water?

Or is everything an inanimate object, except humans and animals, which are talking and feeling meat / machines, but nothing more?

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do materialists consider anything animate objects (as opposed to inanimate objects) or do they view everything as inanimate objects because everything is just composed of material.

For example, is a human an inanimate object?
A plant?
Water?

Or is everything an inanimate object, except humans and animals, which are talking and feeling meat / machines, but nothing more?

Why just ask materialists?

Also can you better define "animate" and "inanimate" in this context?

If you are using "animate" as physically alive - you'll need to provide a clear definition of what you mean by "physically" and especially "alive".

[Zero]

Nothing is 'inanimate'...everything has atoms and whatnot bouncing around inside...:D

[Peskanov]

In my view, this categorization is obsolete, as many others like "artificial/natural".
I understand it's meaning and I will use it in the proper context, but that's all.

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do materialists consider anything animate objects (as opposed to inanimate objects) or do they view everything as inanimate objects because everything is just composed of material.

I don't know what "materialist" means. People have explained it to me, but their explanations have just made it clearer that I don't know what it means. I don't know what it means to say that everything is just composed of "material." Are photons "material?" How about QED amplitudes?

I also don't know what it means to say that something is animate or inanimate. I have some toys that walk around when I wind them up.

Largely, this all seems to me word salad, concepts that should have been clearly laughable hundreds of years ago but have survived because some people find it hard to think without a tattoo on their foreheads.

[The Don]

From Dictionary.com:

ma·te·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-tîr--lzm)
n.
1. Philosophy. 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.
2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

Cretainly by definition 1 I am a materialist. I have seen no evidence to suggest a soul, a higher intelligence at work or lady luck

in·an·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt)
adj.
1. Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead.
2. Not animated or energetic; dull.
3. Grammar. Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.

I would consider people to be animate and organisms capable of movement as being animate.

My own very lax definition would be that I consider something animate if:

- It has an independent power source (clockwork things are not animate)
- It does not require an operator (power stations are not animate)
- It actively interacts with its environment (by this definition, some computers/robots are animate

As our ability to produce smarter stuff increases my rules will become even more lax.

Of course I don't assign animate objects any particular rights over inanimate objects (collectively). I do of course assign certain animate objects (e.g. Mrs Don) particular rights are regards causing them harm but then again I do to some inanimate objects (e.g. my car) for which I am "fond"

[Jet Grind]

Well Tai Chi, don't think I'm being flippant or anything, but I don't really understand what you're asking. I suppose that, to better understand the question, I have to first understand why you are making an ontological distinction between animate and inanimate. Can you define those two terms? I'm a concsious, functioning being and a rock is not, so could I say that I'm animate matter and the rock is not? Or, the other (more likely) possibility is that you are prescribing some sort of inherent specialness to humans (and perhaps other animals).

I'll tell you right off the bat that I do not agree with that. I believe that humans (and other animals) are evolved machines and are just as bound by the laws of physics than a rock or an amoeba. I also think that any view to the contrary is naive romanticism. If this answers your question, good. If not, I would like you to provide some clarification.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T'ai, what difference does it make?

~~ Paul

[roger]

Whatever the definition of animate, it's a property of matter. Just like the green bowl on my desk - green is a property of it. It's not a property of the individual atoms of the bowl, however.

They are both also a loosey-goosey property. The bowl is reflecting many frequencies of light, some near white, others near black. It's also dirty, and one could get into an endless argument at the molecule level as to what constitutes the bowl. Likewise, we can talk about a human being alive or dead, as well as a cell inside a human being alive or dead. There are obvious cases - I am (as I type) alive, president Lincoln is dead. That guy over there on life support with a flatline - bit harder to say. But that is because the definition of 'animate' does not equally and precisely map from the macro scale to the micro scale.

[hammegk]

Damn. This being a Philosophy thread, you'd think all the purported materialists we have here would be providing answers.

I'd say one defining materialist belief, using whatever definition of "life" that the materialist would care to, is that "life" emerges from and returns to "non-life=matter".


Paul: Would you agree the difference would be in the eye of the beholder?

[roger]

Originally posted by hammegk
Damn. This being a Philosophy thread, you'd think all the purported materialists we have here would be providing answers.

I'd say one defining materialist belief, using whatever definition of "life" that the materialist would care to, is that "life" emerges from and returns to "non-life=matter".
I'm surprised it died such a quick death, too.

I'd stipulate what you said, as long as we recognize life as a process, not a 'thing'. (excuse technical term)

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Damn. This being a Philosophy thread, you'd think all the purported materialists we have here would be providing answers.Except that some have already explained above why the question, as asked, does not provide for pat answers, and the terms need to be further defined.
I'd say one defining materialist belief, using whatever definition of "life" that the materialist would care to, is that "life" emerges from and returns to "non-life=matter".I would agree with that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Originally posted by hammegk
I'd say one defining materialist belief, using whatever definition of "life" that the materialist would care to, is that "life" emerges from and returns to "non-life=matter".I would agree with that. I wouldn't. From a strict materialist point of view, life is more a matter of activity rather than state. Whether matter is "alive" or "not alive" depends entirely on what the matter is doing. It would be analogous to saying a person is running or not running. The person is still the same person, just going through a different process or set of actions.

That is, if we're talking about strict materialism.

[hgc]

hgc:
I would agree with that. Originally posted by Upchurch
I wouldn't. From a strict materialist point of view, life is more a matter of activity rather than state. Whether matter is "alive" or "not alive" depends entirely on what the matter is doing. It would be analogous to saying a person is running or not running. The person is still the same person, just going through a different process or set of actions.

That is, if we're talking about strict materialism. Well, I still don't see the problem, unless hammy has hidden a gotcha in there around the definition of the word "emerge."

You start with matter, something becomes "alive," whatever that is, and I guess it's the process of being alive, and then eventually dies, ending that process. Then it's back to just matter. It's really super important though to point out that while alive, it's all just matter then too. So, life emerging from matter does not imply something different from matter. With all those qualifications in place, I can still agree with hammy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Well, I still don't see the problem, unless hammy has hidden a gotcha in there around the definition of the word "emerge."hammegk always has a hidden gotcha when it comes to definitions, but he rarely go so far as to be definitive enough to carry the conversation forward. I've gotten to the point where I just assume that he's playing word games and try to talk about things in as unambiguous terms as possible.

His comment that "non-life=matter" points to the implication that life is something other than matter. From a purly materialistic view, "non-life=matter" is redundent as "life=matter" as well.
You start with matter, something becomes "alive," whatever that is, and I guess it's the process of being alive, and then eventually dies, ending that process. Then it's back to just matter.The problem is, we're speaking from a materialistic view point. It wouldn't be "back to just matter" as it would would have never been thing other than "just matter". Yes, living matter is in a different classification (or state or phase) than non-living matter, but its still just matter.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
hammegk always has a hidden gotcha when it comes to definitions, but he rarely go so far as to be definitive enough to carry the conversation forward. I've gotten to the point where I just assume that he's playing word games and try to talk about things in as unambiguous terms as possible.

His comment that "non-life=matter" points to the implication that life is something other than matter. From a purly materialistic view, "non-life=matter" is redundent as "life=matter" as well.
The problem is, we're speaking from a materialistic view point. It wouldn't be "back to just matter" as it would would have never been thing other than "just matter". Yes, living matter is in a different classification (or state or phase) than non-living matter, but its still just matter.

And to follow on from that we could feed a living creature some tagged (i.e. radioactive) "non-living material" and monitor how it is took into the "living" creature and incorporated into the lump of "living matter" and is now “living” matter itself We could even go further and monitor how some of it is excreted after being incorporated and “used” by the living creature and then appears to be "non-living" matter again.

Personally I don't understand why this "living" and "non-living" is such a problem since "living" is purely a human defined term, for instance some definitions of life would classify a virus as living and some definitions wouldn't. But it doesn't alter the nature of the virus whether you describe it as living or non-living matter.

It’s one of those so-called philosophical points that are little more then semantics.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do materialists consider anything animate objects (as opposed to inanimate objects) or do they view everything as inanimate objects because everything is just composed of material.

For example, is a human an inanimate object?
A plant?
Water?

Or is everything an inanimate object, except humans and animals, which are talking and feeling meat / machines, but nothing more?

If you kick a rock, you can figure out where/when it will end up (at "rest") by applying rules of physics.

If you kick a dog, you cannot apply rules of physics to determine it's resting position nor when that will be.

That's the difference between animate and inanimate.

Animate objects have internally represented goals and can act toward achieving those goals. That means that an autonomous robot (even without any AI) is animate. If a human directly controls the robot, then the robot is the extension of the human's animation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Try kicking that rock over a cliff.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

To all the materialists who must agree they could be replaced with some sensors, servos, & a Turing Machine; my condolences.

At least your position is more logical than dualism.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
To all the materialists who must agree they could be replaced with some sensors, servos, & a Turing Machine; my condolences.

At least your position is more logical than dualism. Who agrees with that? Point to the evidence. Don't be slicky-tricky about it. Just point out where someone said something that could be construed as such.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I would agree with that. I wouldn't. From a strict materialist point of view, life is more a matter of activity rather than state. Whether matter is "alive" or "not alive" depends entirely on what the matter is doing. It would be analogous to saying a person is running or not running. The person is still the same person, just going through a different process or set of actions.

That is, if we're talking about strict materialism. [/QUOTE]

As a further foray into the debate, it comes down to a definition that defines the complexity of interelated events that we call life. I feel that the materialist and the immaterialist come to the same criterie through different means however.

Immaterial:endowed with spirit or consiousness
Material: behaving in a manner considered to be alive.

They are both definitional in nature, and I feel would actualy cover some of the same criteria if discussion occured. I think that some immaterialists find it frustrationg that materialists want an observational defintition. Materialists get frustrated that there is an amibiguity they percieve in the immaterialist position.

But if we get down to what behaviors constitue consiousness and what behaviors constitue life they will appear very similar.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
To all the materialists who must agree they could be replaced with some sensors, servos, & a Turing Machine; my condolences.

At least your position is more logical than dualism.

Hamme;
I find wonder in life, and as I said in the prove the mind thread, this is one of the stranger tenents of materialism. If something can produce all the observable qualities we call alive, then operationaly it is alive.

But then this raises the specter of the quality of life. Could it be that there are living beings which get more enjoyment/fullfillment from living , sure.

And I think that scenarios could be established for either case, a machine with a higher quality of life than a human or a human with a higher quality of life than a simulacrum.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Dancing David
...
Immaterial:endowed with spirit or consiousness
Material: behaving in a manner considered to be alive.
...Yes, it really is a debate on the finer points. No matter where you stand on this question, you still have to go out and kill your dinner, metaphorically speaking, or you will not pass on your genes.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Who agrees with that? Point to the evidence. Don't be slicky-tricky about it. Just point out where someone said something that could be construed as such.

No slicky-tricky involved. The question really is, as a materialist, why would you not agree with that contention? The Real-Time computation problem? OK, "in princple", then? Or something more basic than that?

You allow dna in a cell some special position that cannot be met with servomotors, sensors, and compute power? If so -- as a materialist -- why, since as DD points out, behavior is all there is.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


No slicky-tricky involved. The question really is, as a materialist, why would you not agree with that contention? The Real-Time computation problem? OK, "in princple", then? Or something more basic than that?

You allow dna in a cell some special position that cannot be met with servomotors, sensors, and compute power? If so -- as a materialist -- why, since as DD points out, behavior is all there is. Yes, in principle, I suppose I could imagine such a scenario. I have to wonder if there is some built in limitation as our ability to the build a machine that matches our own complexity.

But why the condolences? Do you think this stance alters the quality of my life in a profound and unfortunate way? The world is what it is. No amount of wishful thinking will add more meaning to my life, other than illusory meaning. I won't posit a divinity or a non-material consciousness just for the sake of feeling better. I'll kill my dinner and get on with life for as long as it lasts.

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,


To all the materialists who must agree they could be replaced with some sensors, servos, & a Turing Machine; my condolences.


Thank you, friend...

Thankfully that revelation stopped hurting some years ago...Time fixes everything.







;)

[hammegk]

Revelation? Or Hallucination? Who can be sure?

And what is Time to a photon?

[Upchurch]

Alcohol Induced Stupor? Or Pink Elephant? Who can be sure?

And what is Rational Conversation to hammegk?

[hammegk]

Uppie: Got a Link????

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by hammegk
To all the materialists who must agree they could be replaced with some sensors, servos, & a Turing Machine; my condolences.

A materialist doesn't neccessarily have to believe that. The number one problem with your generalization is that we don't fully understand the brain. Even though most of the cognitive scientists that I've read think that cognition is a form of computation, what they mean is that it's the processing of physical and temporal patterns (information). That doesn't mean that our brains behave like silicon microprocessors. It's unlikely that the complex electirical chemical interactions that occur in our brain can be replcaed with electronics, but who knows? No one at this point, neuroscience is not really complete within it's framework, but it's getting there.

[hammegk]

Look, as long as neural actions occur at intervals appreciably longer than Planck time, and over distances appreciably larger than Planck length -- in theory -- the results should be exactly replicable by digital computations. Note that this has nothing to do with brains behaving in any way like silicon microprocessors; only that output can be so modelled. The servos & sensors are beyond current tech, but why, in theory, also not doable?

No, the computations may not necessarily be done in real-time, but as technology improves, why not even that. The Planck considerations should bypass effects like Nyquist frequency sampling considerations.

Perhaps more interesting: Can nanotechnology replicate the tiniest things we consider "lifeforms"; dna in a cell structure, perhaps.

[c4ts]

Here's a materialist worldview:

The world is real!

Scary, isn't it?

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,


Look, as long as neural actions occur at intervals appreciably longer than Planck time, and over distances appreciably larger than Planck length -- in theory -- the results should be exactly replicable by digital computations.


Well, it's not that way. A quite basic digital operation (an add) takes more time as more precission (digits) is requested. Same for multiplications. So, precision of operation takes a cost in time.
Anyway, there is no need of following a digital model to emulate a neuron. In fact the original formula is continuous, and the first implementations used analogic electronics.


Note that this has nothing to do with brains behaving in any way like silicon microprocessors; only that output can be so modelled. The servos & sensors are beyond current tech, but why, in theory, also not doable?


Ok, but the output at neuron level! This is important. If the neuron is not well modelled the final output of the system will not match the brain's one.


No, the computations may not necessarily be done in real-time, but as technology improves, why not even that. The Planck considerations should bypass effects like Nyquist frequency sampling considerations.


The current model implies that we will be able to match and surpase brain's speed by orders of magnitude. In fact today we can match it, it's a problem of cost and lack of data about neuron organization, not a problem of technology.


Perhaps more interesting: Can nanotechnology replicate the tiniest things we consider "lifeforms"; dna in a cell structure, perhaps.


And most important; if we assemble some atoms by hand and replicate an object of nature, like a virus...Does it make the result artificial and lifeless? I don't think so.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Peskanov


Well, it's not that way. A quite basic digital operation (an add) takes more time as more precission (digits) is requested. Same for multiplications. So, precision of operation takes a cost in time.
Anyway, there is no need of following a digital model to emulate a neuron. In fact the original formula is continuous, and the first implementations used analogic electronics.
Yup. I never suggested digital compute power would be most efficient, or at all efficient -- just doable.



Ok, but the output at neuron level! This is important. If the neuron is not well modelled the final output of the system will not match the brain's one.
Yeah, another real world problem will be at what level of complexity -- structure, chemistry (w/ quantum effects), energy, etcetc -- the "output" needs to be modelling. Agreed, in theory, probably solvable.


And most important; if we assemble some atoms by hand and replicate an object of nature, like a virus...Does it make the result artificial and lifeless? I don't think so.
OK, start from raw atoms & assemble a structure mirroring a structure that supports "life (by some definition)".

If it "appears alive" like the original, did you create the "life", or did you just provide a structure life "chooses" to animate.

Same problem even if you design one from scratch using something other than a carbon/hydrogen/dna base.

[Peskanov]

If it "appears alive" like the original, did you create the "life", or did you just provide a structure life "chooses" to animate.


When you present this question, it seems to me that you are presupossing life implies conciousness, or even life = conciousness.
In case you aren't: the question makes no sense if all matter follows the same laws, unless you also include all material phenomena under the "life" label.
Or maybe you think that an artificial RNA molecule could fail to match the behaviour our chemical model predicts, because of being "inanimate"?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Peskanov


When you present this question, it seems to me that you are presupossing life implies conciousness, or even life = conciousness.


Implies? No doubt in my mind; Equals, I dunno.

I'd rather say life=sentience, an attribute that non-life does not have.

[Zombified]

Hmm... replacing "life" with either "consciousness" or "sentience" is just substituting one difficult-to-define label for another difficult-to-define label. Not much is gained in the process, although the words do sound nicely important.

If there was a test or procedure to determine whether something was "alive," "conscious" or "sentient" things would be more clear. But that's just being an irritating empiricist, I suppose.

(Empiricism != materialism, BTW)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zombified
Hmm... replacing "life" with either "consciousness" or "sentience" is just substituting one difficult-to-define label for another difficult-to-define label. Not much is gained in the process, although the words do sound nicely important.

If there was a test or procedure to determine whether something was "alive," "conscious" or "sentient" things would be more clear. But that's just being an irritating empiricist, I suppose.

(Empiricism != materialism, BTW)

Hey Zombified, have you ever seen Cemetery Man? Or Shatter Dead? Or Burial Ground? Just wondering.

You know, Jesus was a zombie. Nobody ever mentions that.

-Elliot

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
If there was a test or procedure to determine whether something was "alive," "conscious" or "sentient" things would be more clear. But that's just being an irritating empiricist, I suppose.

(Empiricism != materialism, BTW)

Yes, unfortunately the current test is: "If science can take it apart and reassemble it in working condition, it isn't "life".

[Zombified]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hey Zombified, have you ever seen Cemetery Man? Or Shatter Dead? Or Burial Ground? Just wondering.I don't know - I've seen more than a few zombie movies I can't recall at the moment. The handle actually comes from a song by Alien Sex Fiend.
You know, Jesus was a zombie. Nobody ever mentions that.Spooky!
Originally posted by hammegk
Yes, unfortunately the current test is: "If science can take it apart and reassemble it in working condition, it isn't "life".Actually, it's not. Life is defined to be the possession of metabolism and the ability to self-replicate. I doubt that's satisfying for purposes of this thread, but there it is.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
Actually, it's not. Life is defined to be the possession of metabolism and the ability to self-replicate. I doubt that's satisfying for purposes of this thread, but there it is.

OK, but I didn't want to propose a test that difficult for science to fulfill. I do agree the non-life / life dividing line is problematical for materialists/atheists; and I again state it will always be so.

Most materialists appear not to even consider the implications, forget about discussing them. Do ya'all actually believe the question is irrelevant -- to science and to philosophy?

[Zombified]

This test is very easy to apply. People, plants, cells, etc: alive. Cars, rocks, atoms, viruses: not alive. Where's the problem?

As long as you don't go around thinking there's anything mystical about life, you're not going to encounter any difficulties with its definition. Your misplaced concern for the problems of interpreting the definition is based on your assumption that there's more to life than what I've offered as its operational definition, but that's really, with all due respect, circular.

BTW although the intersections are nonempty, materialist != atheist, either, and neither == empiricist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The philosophical implications of the life/nonlife demarcation is nothing compared to the implications of the blue/green demarcation. I dare anyone to find the point at which blue changes to green.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Why not go for the whole enchilada and worry about the energy / matter division?

Soon you'll be wondering at what point Aristotelian logic fails.

[Zombified]

What energy/matter division?

[hammegk]

We could begin the search at the wave / particle boundary I suppose. :)

[Zombified]

What wave/particle boundary?

[hammegk]

Er, yes, you are beginning to see the problem.

[Zombified]

Er, no, you're missing my point. Ok, so I've sort of been deliberately obscure with those last two one-liners.

The point is, you are assuming there is a fundamental qualitative distinction where no significant distinction exists, or where the terms themselves are not well defined (common colloquial definitions aren't good enough).

To take the particular example of particles and waves, the point of wave/particle duality is not about waves or particles. Both are classical concepts that, in isolation, are each inadequate to describe real matter (and energy). In modern times, we have better tools for describing matter at the atomic and subatomic levels. Unfortunately, people hear about this 80-year-old confusion about waves and particles that was resolved decades ago, and assume something interesting is going on. We believe in waves and particles because our brains are programmed by evolution to operate in an environment that can be modelled classically, but nature is not that way.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
OK, but I didn't want to propose a test that difficult for science to fulfill. I do agree the non-life / life dividing line is problematical for materialists/atheists; and I again state it will always be so.
Defining life is a bit tricky, but I'll give it a shot...

A few excerpts from Dictionary.com - Life (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life):
The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; -- used of all animal and vegetable organisms.

...

the condition of living or the state of being alive

...

the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones

From Dictionary.com - Living (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=living):
To be alive; to have life; to have, as an animal or a plant, the capacity of assimilating matter as food, and to be dependent on such assimilation for a continuance of existence; as, animals and plants that live to a great age are long in reaching maturity.

"Life" is just a word we use to define things with specific organic properties. You would probably have to find someone more qualified than myself, they might be more helpful in going into more depth.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh


"Life" is just a word we use to define things with specific organic properties. You would probably have to find someone more qualified than myself, they might be more helpful in going into more depth.

Like these guys?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The philosophical implications of the life/nonlife demarcation is nothing compared to the implications of the blue/green demarcation. I dare anyone to find the point at which blue changes to green.

~~ Paul

Just one simple question. Is teal closer to blue or green?

-Elliot

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
.... nature is not that way.

Yeah, I know. We were discussing what way nature might actually be, I thought. I notice that we don't seem to have many materialists who want to discuss their worldview(s).

[Peskanov]

Yeah, I know. We were discussing what way nature might actually be, I thought. I notice that we don't seem to have many materialists who want to discuss their worldview(s).


Well, what remains to be said? Some posts ago, I asked you if you related consciousness with life and you replied:


Implies? No doubt in my mind; Equals, I dunno.

I'd rather say life=sentience, an attribute that non-life does not have.


We can't argue with belief. You think a fungus is a sentient being, despite lacking a brain or any nervous system. So? Will you give us some reason for that we can discuss?

From a materialist POV, the attributes listed in the article you linked are a good description of what constitutes life. This list also replies ancient questions about what is alive or not: fire? wind? etc...
A question I think could be related: Why the universe produces life? Why the aparition of homeoestatic machines? Anyway that questions it's outside the scope of the thread.