As a literal philosophical representation, materialists can be termed Reductionists and materialism termed Reductionism because the fundamental principle behind this school of thought basically reduces everything to what can be perceived.

A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of thought?
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment section)

our senses evolved to help us look for food, run away from danger and reproduce. There are many things we cant perceive. so it is illogical to say that what we can perceive is all that exists.

Even something as ephemeral as the mind is tied to physical things thus I find it hard to credit the notion that there exists a whole 'nother realm occupied by things that are not perceptable. Granted I used to believe it was the case that such a realm existed but when I recollect all the so called "spiritual experiences" none of them carry any weight in establishing the veracity of such a claim.

Being a "materialist" is the logical course of action until it can be proved that there exists such a thing as a spiritual realm.

The fact that we keep pondering it. The fact that man has continued to look to the heavens for succor. The fact that across civilizations, man always seeks out something to worship, something greater than himself.
Like a baby's instinctive search for his mother's breast even without understanding what it is, we keep seeking in different ways, we have been seeking since we became and we will continue to seek no matter how advanced scientifically we get.
That is my proof that there is something beyond the material.
Ergo, materialism is illogical.

LordReed:
Even something as ephemeral as the mind is tied to physical things thus I find it hard to credit the notion that there exists a whole 'nother realm occupied by things that are not perceptable.

Even science allows for such possibility, with string theory giving rise to many extra dimensions impossible for you to detect.

Granted I used to believe it was the case that such a realm existed but when I recollect all the so called "spiritual experiences" none of them carry any weight in establishing the veracity of such a claim.

So in otherwords, anything you can't detect or perceive doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be saying your perceptive senses are infallible since it is highly unlikely that the entirety of existence stops at things we can detect with our sense?

Being a "materialist" is the logical course of action until it can be proved that there exists such a thing as a spiritual realm.

How do you prove something imperceptible to the senses?

As explained by the OP, reductionism!

johnydon22:
How do you prove something imperceptible to the senses?

Hehehehe, thats the riddle those who believe have to solve.

adoyi8:
our senses evolved to help us look for food, run away from danger and reproduce. There are many things we cant perceive. so it is illogical to say that what we can perceive is all that exists.

How do we infer what is if we can't perceive them?

LordReed:


Hehehehe, thats the riddle those who believe have to solve.

Hahaha actually it isn't, it is yours. As someone who asks for proof, it is left for you to state the kind of proof that sufficiently satisfies this.

So, what sort of proof do you expect for something not perceptive to your 5 senses?

ThothHermes:
The fact that we keep pondering it. The fact that man has continued to look to the heavens for succor. The fact that across civilizations, man always seeks out something to worship, something greater than himself.
Like a baby's instinctive search for his mother's breast even without understanding what it is, we keep seeking in different ways, we have been seeking since we became and we will continue to seek no matter how advanced scientifically we get.
That is my proof that there is something beyond the material.
Ergo, materialism is illogical.

Something beyond the material doesn't necessarily mean God bro.

And the reasons above, how do connect them as proof to your argument?

johnydon22:
Hahaha actually it isn't, it is yours. As someone who asks for proof, it is left for you to state the kind of proof that sufficiently satisfies this.

So, what sort of proof do you expect for something not perceptive to your 5 senses?

Actually its theirs because they are the ones making the claim. They claim there is such a world so they should show us how they perceived a realm that is unperceptible.

Just typing this out already shows how confused the concept is.

johnydon22:
Something beyond the material doesn't necessarily mean God bro.

And the reasons above, how do connect them as proof to your argument?

I did not say anything about God.
Your thread says to show the illogicality or otherwise of materialism. And that's what I did/attempted to do.

LordReed:


Actually its theirs because they are the ones making the claim. They claim there is such a world so they should show us how they perceived a realm that is unperceptible.

Just typing this out already shows how confused the concept is.

Exactly! Of what use is believing something that is unfalsifiable?

ThothHermes:
I did not say anything about God.
Your thread says to show the illogicality or otherwise of materialism. And that's what I did/attempted to do.

I know but most of your proof seem to be stating about some supposedly innate yearning for higher authority by humanity which implies God, or doesn't it?

johnydon22:
I know but most of your proof seem to be stating about some supposedly innate yearning for higher authority by humanity which implies God, or doesn't it?

It implies something greater, something this realm. God is an arbitrary term here, if you choose to call it that then it's okay.

LordReed:


Actually its theirs because they are the ones making the claim. They claim there is such a world so they should show us how they perceived a realm that is unperceptible.

Just typing this out already shows how confused the concept is.

The problem isn't about making the claim but rather sufficient proof for a materialists on a material claim.

You asked for the proof, you should be able to know what type of proof should suffice.

So, what type of proof do you ask for when asking for proof on something supposedly imperceptible to your senses?

Primary onus of proof is on the claimant - undisputed.

One who asks for proof should have an idea of what type of proof is required to validly answer their skepticism.

Or is "prove it" just a meaningless term?

ThothHermes:
It implies something greater, something this realm. God is an arbitrary term here, if you choose to call it that then it's okay.

So, by your logic, something immaterial is greater than the material? How is this conclusion reached?

IAmSabrina:

Exactly! Of what use is believing something that is unfalsifiable?

Not the point. The point is, when you ask for proof for something supposedly imperceptible, what type of proof exactly are you asking for since proof simply means "Appeal to my perceptibility".

For instance, String Theory (which by the way is the strongest theory at the moment employed in explaining the universe) allows for extra dimensions beyond this.

What proof would you require to believe this?

johnydon22:
Even science allows for such possibility, with string theory giving rise to many extra dimensions impossible for you to detect.

Science allows for the possibility of many things, doesn't make them real or true. I will wait for when such phenomena can be proven to exist.

So in otherwords, anything you can't detect or perceive doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be saying your perceptive senses are infallible since it is highly unlikely that the entirety of existence stops at things we can detect with our sense?

Never said such or suggested such; I said the logical course is to be "materialist" until such can be proved which is what your op asked.

johnydon22:
So, by your logic, something immaterial is greater than the material? How is this conclusion reached?

Intuition.

johnydon22:
The problem isn't about making the claim but rather sufficient proof for a materialists on a material claim.

You asked for the proof, you should be able to know what type of proof should suffice.

So, what type of proof do you ask for when asking for proof on something supposedly imperceptible to your senses?

Primary onus of proof is on the claimant - undisputed.

One who asks for proof should have an idea of what type of proof is required to validly answer their skepticism.

Or is "prove it" just a meaningless term?

They will have to give a coherent description of this "spiritual realm" before one can formulate what may be required as proof. I am yet to see such a coherent description.

IAmSabrina:

Exactly! Of what use is believing something that is unfalsifiable?

It just feels so dishonest.

LordReed:


Science allows for the possibility of many things, doesn't make them real or true. I will wait for when such phenomena can be proven to exist.

Meaning that even science itself as a discipline or philosophy isn't materialistic correct?

So, what sort of proof would you require to prove extra dimensions that are by definition imperceptible to you as a 3D being?

Never said such or suggested such; I said the logical course is to be "materialist"

Science as a discipline relies heavily on logic and mathematics and this logic and mathematics has taken us beyond simple materials perceptible to us in String Theory, doesn't this imply that the thought of immaterial things is very logical?

until such can be proved which is what your op asked.

How do you bring to your senses what is by definition imperceptible to your senses? Isn't that a contradiction?

If it can be reduced to your senses, then it is material.

But it is immaterial by definition hence unprovable in the material sense.

The most likely approach is maths and logic, would these derivative evidences suffice for you as a skeptic in the immaterial?

johnydon22:
How do we infer what is if we can't perceive them?

if we cant perceive them then they dont matter 2 our survival. if they begin 2 matter then we hv 2 evolve 2 perceive them n react appropriatly or go extinct.

LordReed:


They will have to give a coherent description of this "spiritual realm" before one can formulate what may be required as proof. I am yet to see such a coherent description.

I am actually not talking about 'spiritual realm' that language use is theological.

i am using the term 'immaterial' since it encompasses the concept i am asking about. And immaterial here simply means, things that are not perceptible by your 5 senses. E.G: 4th or 5th or 6th and so forth dimensions as are implications of string theory

adoyi8:
if we cant perceive them then they dont matter 2 our survival. if they begin 2 matter then we hv 2 evolve 2 perceive them n react appropriatly or go extinct.

Survival isn't the premise here but rather existence in an objective sense.

A materialist believes everything that exists must be perceptible. (Reduction principle)

A non materialist thinks not.

johnydon22:
I am actually not talking about 'spiritual realm' that language use is theological.

i am using the term 'immaterial' since it encompasses the concept i am asking about. And immaterial here simply means, things that are not perceptible by your 5 senses. E.G: 4th or 5th or 6th and so forth dimensions as are implications of string theory

My 1st post tried to limit the scope of my answer to the religious aspects. I will leave all that string theory stuff to actual scientists. That type of science is above my paygrade LoL.

LordReed:


My 1st post tried to limit the scope of my answer to the religious aspects.

Well, we will wait for a thread on spiritual realm then. Lol

Let's just say, this thread is neither theological or scientific but rather philosophical.

It doesn't exclude either but is not limited to any

I will leave all that string theory stuff to actual scientists. That type of science is above my paygrade LoL.

None of us are experts in string theory bro, it is simply used to demonstrate the idea of immaterialism.

johnydon22:
Meaning that even science itself as a discipline or philosophy isn't materialistic correct?

So, what sort of proof would you require to prove extra dimensions that are by definition imperceptible to you as a 3D being?


Science as a discipline relies heavily on logic and mathematics and this logic and mathematics has taken us beyond simple materials perceptible to us in String Theory, doesn't this imply that the thought of immaterial things is very logical?


How do you bring to your senses what is by definition imperceptible to your senses? Isn't that a contradiction?

If it can be reduced to your senses, then it is material.

But it is immaterial by definition hence unprovable in the material sense.

The most likely approach is maths and logic, would these derivative evidences suffice for you as a skeptic in the immaterial?

I think we are hitting a mix up here of two different things. Unperceptible and immaterial are two different things. The extra dimensions as envisioned by string theory may very well be "material" like time is "material" we just have not found a way of measuring such dimensions so they are unperceptible. Immaterial on the other hand declares such things as having no physical dimensions by which they may be observed or measured. This to me are 2 fundamentally different things so which are you concerned with?

johnydon22:
Well, we will wait for a thread on spiritual realm then. Lol

Let's just say, this thread is neither theological or scientific but rather philosophical.

It doesn't exclude either but is not limited to any

None of us are experts in string theory bro, it is simply used to demonstrate the idea of immaterialism.

Is string theory not largely mathematical?

johnydon22:
How do we infer what is if we can't perceive them?

Infering things we cant perceive or prove was what led to religions. lets be humble and accept that we are just humans and there many things we cant perceive

adoyi8:
Infering things we cant perceive or prove was what led to religions. lets be humble and accept that we are just humans and there many things we cant perceive

I know that it is very possible that we can't even perceive 99% of what exists through any of our senses or equipments, my question simply is; How do we come to the knowledge or concept of things we can't perceive?

LordReed:


Is string theory not largely mathematical?

It is since it transcends our material physics.