The definition of the material is not this

I've heard a number of people on the net, typically those with a scientific background, assert that something is material or physical if it can affect anything else. Or, in other words, if it has causal powers.

This is of course a ridiculous definition. It rules out interactive dualism by definition. If the soul or self can move the body, they assert it is material. That's despite the fact the self/soul might not have any location, isn't made out of atoms or anything else, and indeed doesn't have any physical properties whatsoever.

But it gets even worse. Consider Berkeley's metaphysic (subjective idealism). In his metaphysic the only things that have causal powers are finite spirits (i.e us), and the infinite spirit (God). The "external" world of trees, rocks, and stars, are equated with our sensory perceptions (qualia) and of course this "external world" has no causal powers at all. It is God that does everything.

But this then means that spirits -- whether finite or infinite -- are material, but that what we call the physical world is non-material!

Needless to say this is ludicrous. It might be helpful if these people with a scientific background actually thought a little about this.

The God helmet

Just watched this video about mystical experiences and the God helmet.  The speaker implicitly supposes, but doesn't argue, that the God helmet produces such experiences.

But such a conclusion is simply not warranted.  The fact that "the God helmet" triggers such experiences does not entail that the brain is the origin of such experiences. For example, one could be blind due to damage to the brain rather than the eyes. One could thereby restore vision if that part of the brain were altered to make it fully functional again. It wouldn't thereby entail the things we see are not out there.
The brain might prohibit such mystical experiences in its normal functional state. Altering a certain area might allow us glimpses of a reality normally inaccessible to us as the brain filters out such experiences.

See other essays by me on this topic in my other blog: e.g

Neither Modern Materialism nor Science as currently conceived can explain Consciousness

Julian Baggini's Heathen Manifesto

Reading atheists, please read my heathen manifesto.


In section 2 (Heathens are naturalists) the author Julian Baggini says:

[W]e believe in naturalism: the natural world is all there is and there is no purposive, conscious agency that created or guides it.

I imagine this also applies to any sub-section of the natural world too. So that my body as well as the entire physical realm as a whole, is not guided by a purposive, conscious agency either -- including these very words I write now!

Or if sub-sections of the natural realm can be conscious -- i.e organisms and perhaps computers -- what makes it reasonable to suppose the totality of the natural world is not guided by a purposive conscious agency?

The problem is that many self-professed naturalists don't think through what they believe, and even if they do they tend to be poor at philosophical reasoning. And they don't realise that the widening of the eyes and interest people display when they tell them they are naturalists is because people think that they're being told that they are a naturist! (NB a naturist is not a naturalist!)

I wonder why people are unable to understand that atheism and organised religion do not exhaust all options. Most curious.

What I'm really interested in.

I am interested in what the world is, what I am, what we all are. I'm interested in why I'm here. Did I have a choice in being here? Am I supposed to be doing something now I am here? If so, then what? Is it possible I might never have existed? Does the Universe have a purpose? Do we have some ultimate purpose? Do all things have some ultimate purpose? Or are our lives and the Universe ultimately absurd? Is this the only reality? Or are there many realities or dimensions, whether afterlife realms, parallel Universes, or even magical lands like Narnia? I want to know what all things mean. These are the questions I'm interested in.

Naturalism and Materialism are necessarily false

Thoughts exhibit intentionality. Naturalism is the view that all of nature is determined by laws and processes that have no plan, no intentions, at their foundation. Therefore this entails that thoughts cannot literally be identical to a physical process. Since thoughts cannot be derived from physical processes either (i.e they are non-reducible), and thoughts exist, this entails naturalism is false. A fortiori materialism is false too.