Here is a refute to that petty and misguided argument of yours.
It's done by an Atheist who happends to be a Astrophysicist.
You can get a hold of this man at this website and you can take you bullshit up with him, just let me know.
Hello,
When religionists assert the idea of materialism is self-refuting they mean that the reductionist basis of materialism is inadequate to account for a non-material or non-physical phenomenon such as thought.
They forget, or care to ignore, that we know life itself can be accounted for by things not necessarily alive, such as DNA, proteins etc. Of course, a better way to put this is that these inanimate elements or factors are necessary conditions for life as we know it. There may be other “sufficient conditions”, e.g. which alone allow *explicitly* for life.
Today, when one pragmatically addresses causality, it is preferable to use "necessary and sufficient conditions" rather than allude to some vague, undifferentiated causality. Since causality is often not clear, i.e. there can be many causes for one effect, or simulateous ones, adopting the N-S condition approach is more useful.
Thus, for a car accident to occur, being in a car and on the road is a necessary condition. Sufficient conditions may be that the driver’s blood alcohol was over 0.15 and that his brakes gave out at the critical instant at an intersection.
The argument that materialism is “self refuting” was originally put forward in the popular context by C.S. Lewis (originally an atheist who “saw the light” then became a Roman Catholic). More recently, philosopher Mary Midgley has argued that materialism is a “self-refuting idea”.
Catholic philosopher Ed. L. Miller probably circulated the idea most widely via university philosophy courses) with his textbook: ‘Questions that Matter’. In his chapter on Materialism, Miller’s efforts fall flat when he takes on the sophisticated arguments of philosopher J.J. Smart, who uses quantum physics and its indeterminism to extend the basis of that philosophy away from its ancient (and overly simplistic) Greek origins.
As we know, modern materialism is now more accurately physicalism – since it embodies not merely the atoms of Demokritos, but also the indeterminate physical aspects of matter addressed by quantum mechanics. This includes existence of de Broglie (matter) waves, multiple fields, as well as quantum nonlocality (verified in Alain Aspect’s 1982 experiments at the University of Paris) and the principle of superposition of states as well as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
What this means, is that the hackneyed arguments people originally gave – based on attacking ancient Greek materialism- no longer hold water.
In the aspect referred to above, Miller attempts to discredit Smart by asking: “If all thought is purely the result of physical brain activity then why should the content of this thought be anything special... why pay any attention to it if it is thus self-refuting?”
This, however, is based on several egregious assumptions, not the least of which is the unproven belief that self-refuting thought can be unimpeachably identified within the physical matrix that engenders consciousness. As I note in my (2000) book, 'The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism' (p. 164) - since there's no practical method to identify the site of a specific thought (where the associated quantum wavepacket collapses at specific synapses.) nothing can be said about the quality or content of the thought.
In other words, the supernaturalist can't make any claims about thought in a purely Materialist context. Including whether it is "self-refuting".
To learn much more about the analogy of thought to quantum processes - and how wavepacket collapse is involved, see David BoHydromax’s excellent text ‘Quantum Theory’ pp. 170-171, ‘Possible Reason for Analogies Between Thought and Quantum Processes’ .
QM enters brain behavior since, as physicist Henry Stapp has pointed out (‘Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics’, p. 42) uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion capture near synapses shows the Ca++ ions must be represented by a probability function. Specifically, the dimension of the associated calcium ion wavepacket scales many times larger than the ion itself- nullifying the use of classical trajectories etc.
Since the Ca++ wavepacket information is ultimately describable in terms of quantum mechanical wavefunctions, e.g.
U (x,y,z) = u1(x, y,z) + u2(x,y,z) + u3(x, y, z) + …..uN(x,y,z)
Then there is necessarily a “superposition of states” applicable until wavepacket collapse. This means any nascent thought within the wavepacket is literally in a “black box”. That box isn’t “opened” until the thought itself emerges whether in speech or writing.
“Opening” the box (selecting the single thought to be expressed out of all competing ones) would be analogous to disturbing a system with a measuring apparatus. In this case, as BoHydromax notes (p.128) each of the terms above in u1, u2 etc. must include an exponential function with “an unpredictable and uncontrollable phase factor”, call it ‘p’.
Thus for each term above, include the factor: exp (ip) with the phase factor p changing numbers with the order of the term.
For example, the first term would be written:
U1(x,y,z) exp(ip1)
and the succeeding ones in analogous fashion.
In his 1991 book, ‘Consciousness Explained’, Daniel Dennett invokes a somewhat superposition –based analogy (albeit not at the quantum
scale) in his “multiple drafts” description of consciousness. In this, the brain fashions multiple drafts for thought, for example, before a final single draft emerges. Dennett, by the way, does an excellent job in dispelling once and for all the need for a “commander pilot” or “soul” that has to be “seated” in the brain to direct it or enable it to perform.
None is needed, because in truth and fact, the way the brain works in generating “multiple drafts” and producing a final outcome (as a thought) renders any “pilot” redundant. In these type of theories, Dennett’s and mine (at the quantum level) we see that the “soul-pilot” emerges as an illusion. Our own brain has been complicit in this in creating the illusion there is someone or something behind the eyes, and pulling the strings. There isn’t.
The belief there is something unseen "essence behind the eyes” is a carryover from ancient, Aristotelian modes of thought. The same modes evident in Aristotelian physics which maintained that heavier objects traveled faster when dropped from a height because they “desired to reach the Earth more quickly”. Hardly!
It is unfortunate that humans for the most part remain in the throes of antiquated modes of thought more peculiar to the ancients. Julian Jaynes (‘The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind’, 1976) perhaps best described these as “lacking the sense of metaphor … that characterizes a more advanced mind”.
However, as science makes greater inroads these antiquated relics will surely fall away as people realize that invisible “entities” that were invented hundreds of years ago have no basis in reality. And once science can provide an answer, even an improbable one, the use of any competing non-natural hypothesis must fall by the way side – unless the proponent wishes to be guilty of the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius .(Seeking to explain the not well understood by the less well understood).
At the end of the day, natural explanations therefore will always trump non-natural ones – because the latter are always “less well understood” by definition. And up to now, no non-natural realm has been demonstrated even remotely, only speculated on.
In a way, it is ironic that the theologian’s postulate of the “soul” is the real self-refuting basis for thought. This is because absolutely no evidence exists for a “soul”. It is pure theological conjecture. Meanwhile, we know the brain exists – it can be measured, weighed and thoughts – as altering levels of brain activity- actually recorded using positron emission tomography.
Going back to the beginning of this response, we know the brain is at least a necessary condition for thought. To this point no one has demonstrated that thought originates without a brain. When they do, one might be able to seriously consider the possibility. As for sufficient conditions for thought, it’s plausible that at least one is that when an action potential has been propagated by an axon, the neuron on the opposite side of a synapse fires.
Again, the necessary condition is already in place, and the sufficient condition uses that and goes beyond it.
Until the religionists disprove this is the case, or can show their own necessary and sufficient conditions for thought (in particular that it can occur without benefit of immaterial medium) they are wasting their time in semantic exercises of unknown utility.
In some ways this argument bears similarity to the “ether’ once postulated in physics. It was believed for many years that light needed a medium (“ether”) to propagate and couldn’t do so in a vacuum. This is somewhat analogous to the feeling of many vitalists that a “soul” is required for thought.
In physics, the Michelson-Morley experiment finally rendered the ether a redundant anachronism, or an unnecessary ‘macguffin’, inserted because people believed it was “needed”. But now we know light can indeed propagate in vacuo. I am confident that one day the “soul” will be rendered just as redundant in terms of thought and consciousness.
Hope this answer sheds light!
