Habitude

Metaphysical Materialism

Two discussions from WSM forum:

1. Morality and Socialism, with mention of D’Alembert

1. Socialism and Morality (most recent first)

Self awareness, reasoning, etc. are not earmarks of the existence of a soul. Marvin Minsky (among others) is an artificial intelligence expert and logically showed that computers theoretically can have the abilities of higher animals—humans in particular—to be self aware, and all the other criteria we assign to our species. The notion of soul is tied up in the complexity of patterns of thought that a sufficiently complex machine can develop. This is why there are several artificial intelligence experts that have a legitimate fear of the “ultimate” computer.

[Chris] >Hi there, interesting discussion, to which I’d like to add another
>variant of a suggestion I’ve made before, perhaps chez WiC.

>Socialists wedded to materialism seem to have a problem with providing
>materialist explanations for phenomena like consciousness, morality,
>religious belief, and other aspects of personal and social conduct. The
>problem may be that materialist ideas have a history in 17th and 18th
>century thought, when philosophers and scientists had considered and
>decided upon a duality of body and soul [...]

Socialists don’t have this problem with their materialism, because it is more sophisticated than 18th century thought – in fact, what we mean by ‘materialist’ is quite different to the 18th century definition.

We mean that we start with people as they actually are and live, rather than looking outside of this for a priori rules to define our existence. We thus start inside of thought and consciousness, rather than on the outside – though we do not make the individualist mistake of thinking that thoughts spring ready made in our heads, but rather say that consciousness is a social process, and that there is no hard distinction between consciousness and matter because the matter we are referring to is actually our ‘thoughts’ about matter, and thoughts are material things. (It’s slightly more complex than this but this will do for now).

So, specifically, socialist thought does not have a problem with the duality of ‘body’ and ‘soul’ because we as socialists never make such a distinction. It is the same life viewed first in one way, and then in another. All the terms ‘body’ and ‘soul’ do is artificially constrain thought, so if you are talking about the ‘soul’ you ignore the relations that consciousness has to the world it is in, and if ‘body’ then you wilfully ignore the fact that the body is of a creature that *thinks*. In other words, it is modern capitalist thought that has the problem, and spawns on the one had crude materialists who think we are all mindless zombies, and on the other hand the God Squad.

What we would *not* do is make a separation, for example, between an ethical code and the material world we live in. No Kantian imperatives for a materialist! Instead of pursuing the impossible, of trying to eliminate all material factors to get a uniform code of behaviour (like Rawls’ theory of justice from ‘behind the veil’, for example) we instead say that the same material factors should lead to the same behaviour within those parameters.

Hence the class analysis as opposed to universal brotherhood. We do not say that all can live in peace and harmony, because that would be to blatantly ignore the material factors that go into behaviour. Instead we say that a *class* can emerge, with the *same* material circumstances and thus the *same* behaviour.

In other words, we argue for a class morality, and would argue for a class everything else as opposed to a utopian list of ethics and morals. We as a class can share a code of conduct, share a peaceful future as a sole liberated class, because we have no material differences that would impinge on ethics.

The ruling class, however, has its own set of materially determined ethics, from their own minority situation, which they try to foist onto us as part of the class struggle, calling their ideas universal ideas and pointing to the fact that yes, indeed, these ethics do arise from the world we currently live in, but not mentioning that this world we live in is one of money, wage slavery, and the ethics of that world are merely the relations of master and slave raised to the heavens.

22/4/07 Hi there, interesting discussion, to which I’d like to add another variant of a suggestion I’ve made before, perhaps chez WiC.

Socialists wedded to materialism seem to have a problem with providing materialist explanations for phenomena like consciousness, morality, religious belief, and other aspects of personal and social conduct. The problem may be that materialist ideas have a history in 17 th and 18 th century thought, when philosophers and scientists had considered and decided upon a duality of body and soul (see quote from D’Alembert below); furthermore they regarded the existence of regularities in the universe as evidence of the existence of God (now we take the ‘laws’ of science for granted but without the mind of God, there’s nowhere to put them ‘out there’ beyond our own heads and discourses). Later on, first deists and then atheists questioned or ignored the soul and God, focussing their attention on studying physical phenomena, but present-day materialists, particularly socialists, are left with a lot of uncertainty over a whole bunch of previously soul-associated phenomena. YFS, Chris

D’Alembert, Jean L Rond, Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot, trans. by Richard N. Schwab (New York: Library of Liberal Arts, 1963), pp.13-14

By the acquired idea of the just and the unjust (and consequently the idea of the moral nature of actions), we are naturally led to consider what principle it is within us that acts, or, which amounts to the same thing, the substance that wills and conceives. It is not necessary to probe deeply into the nature of our body and the idea we have of it to recognize that it could not be that substance, because the properties we observe in matter have nothing in common with the faculty of willing and thinking. Consequently, this being called Us is made up of two principles of a different nature [body and soul], so closely united that we could neither suspend nor alter the correspondence which prevails between the movements of the one and the reactions of the other, and subjects each to the other. This mutual slavery [of soul and body] which is so independent of us, together with the reflections we are impelled to make on the nature of the two principles and on their imperfection, lifts us to the contemplation of an all- [end p.13] powerful Intelligence who is the source of what we are and who consequently requires our worship.(n.22) Our inner conviction alone would suffice to make us recognize the existence of such a being, even if the universal testimonies of other men and of all Nature were not joined with it.

It is therefore evident that the purely intellectual concepts of vice and virtue, the principle and the necessity of laws, the spiritual nature of the soul, the existence of God and of our obligations toward him—in a word, the truths for which we have the most immediate and indispensable need—are the fruits of the first reflective ideas that our sensations occasion.

However interesting these first truths may be for the most noble part of ourselves, soon the body, to which the soul is joined, turns our attention to itself, because of the necessity of providing for its endlessly multiplying needs. The care for its preservation must be directed either toward preventing the evils that threaten it or toward remedying those that have attacked it. We try to satisfy these needs by two means: by our own discoveries and by the investigations of other men, which our social intercourse puts us in a position to enjoy. Whence must have come the birth of agriculture and medicine first, and then all the most absolutely necessary arts. They were at the same time both our most primitive knowledge and the source of all other knowledge, even of that which by its nature seems most remote from them. We must develop this point in further detail.

n.22 One can see a Cartesian inspiration in parts of this passage. However. in contrast to Descartes. who goes from mind (“I think, therefore I am”), to God, to body, to the rest of the material world, d’Alembert starts from physical sensations, material facts, and the demands of the body. Then he moves to the historical formation of society and ideas of ethics, thereafter to knowledge of the soul, and finally to God. Again he adds historical considerations and Lockeian sensationalism to the timeless Cartesian metaphysical derivation of the origin of ideas. He defends this sequence later against the complaints of the pious by claiming that experience, history, and reason show that the notions of vices and virtues have preceded knowledge of the true God among the pagans (Oeuvres, I, 14-15).

Yes, I think the whole issue of how we construct moral codes is complicated. Possibly even more complicated than capitalist economics but that does mean that it is not worth while investigating it as part of our material condition.

In Das Capital Karl broke it down to its basic element, the labour theory of value and used that basic model to examine the bewildering complexities of capitalism along with its instinct to accumulate surplus labour, dead labour, human effort or surplus value however you wish to think of it.

Language itself, as you mention it, is complicated but apparently it can be understood as a universal human `instinct’ with basic rules or something. I know absolutely nothing at all on this subject other than hearsay.

The fact that we do not have adequate words to describe this `social instinct’ must be a reflection of the novelty of the idea. Others are talking about moral grammar and moral precursors etc. So they are struggling as well.

I am well aware of the need to be very careful with this kind of thing. I am the last person to want to wake up with a stinking hangover to find myself in bed with a sociobiologist or evolutionary psychologist, even if it has been a long time.

It is possible that moral codes can be constructed in the past and that they take on the form of taboos in which case abuse of them is felt as an anti social act. But they way we respond to the moral code is always ultimately social, irrespective of whether or not it is any way rational.

When all else fails, as is brought out in B’s post, metaphysical constructions of morality can be created in which case just about anything is possible. That is probably based on pure self interest and fear of a vengeful god, hellfire and damnation etc. A good one for the ruling class if they can pull it off in the absence of any other possible moral dissimulations.

The main objection to socialism now appears to be a lack of faith in ourselves to carry it off. People seem to believe that we are what we have been turned into, God will really have to help us if that is true, individuals engaged in perpetual hostile competition with each other and Bentham’s shopkeepers.

Understanding how it all works on our minds, like understanding capitalist economics, could help us see through it.

I’m not sure but I think you may have misunderstood my line of argument since I’m not fundamentally in disagreement with you over your speculations about the existence of a social instinct. I might have a little problem with your concept of the soul and your suggestions about red hot pokers – from a personal perspective, you understand! – but otherwise I think we largely agree on this.

Where we diverge perhaps is in the relationship of that social instinct to morality. I do not think it is possible to speak of a ‘moral instinct’ and I don’t think that the gut feelings we experience are themselves necessarily moral. Instincts are instincts and need factual Darwinian explanations. Moral actions or judgements belong to the realm of thought. As I argued in an earlier post with Rebecca, the woman who feels an impulse to preserve her child rather than throw it down a well is experiencing some kind of social instinct but that instinct is not in itself moral. It is only when she argues the case with herself and evaluates the social rule against her maternal ‘instinct’ that she enters the world of moral judgement.

Gut feelings – impulses which govern or influence what we might describe as moral behaviour are more complex. I don’t really know myself how to understand them, but I think they do need to be understood and I don’t think a concept such as ‘moral instinct’ is precise or accurate enough. Apart from anything else it does torture the normal logic built into language to put the two terms together. And gut experiences are clearly not simple in themselves. Neither do they have a single origin. But as soon as you start to go there you get yourself into incredibly complex issues, some evidential, some logical. As I start to think about it I’m overwhelmed with questions, one after another.

Most ‘gut feelings’ I would suggest are learned, but they have become internalised and have fallen out of conscious control. They often have consequences which result in thoughts or behaviour which we describe as moral. But I doubt whether we could call them moral in themselves. I think something only becomes moral when it manifests as moral behaviour or moral thought. And moral thought very often accompanies those gut feelings sometimes so swiftly, quietly and instantaneously that they are difficult to catch.

Gut feelings themselves might even originate from moral linguistic behaviour. For example our gut feeling my be occasioned by our early experience of mum saying ‘bad boy’ when we did something she disapproved of while simultaneously exhibiting anger or withdrawing love.

Other gut feelings might originate as part of a social instinct. You might be right. I don’t know.

To find a way through this tangle, it might be possible to construct a model of the most basic of social instincts, the desire to be part of a group. In this instance the desire might manifest as a need to conform which in turn gives rise to an acceptance of society’s moral injunctions.

I’m wondering if morality itself might arise out of conflict. When social or other instincts or other social injunctions come into conflict, a conscious need to resolve them emerges and that’s when we develop a language of morality. That morality then gets codified when group interests become apparent. Just a thought. I’m not wedded to this one, but I think it would be an interesting line of thought to pursue. Or not! How much time is there?

This is a hoary old chestnut – just an attempt at name calling in the absence any better argument. And it wouldn’t be worth responding to except it is also a lot of tosh, from many points of view.

If you take a reductionist view, everything you believe – everything anyone can believe – is ultimately based on a set of untestable axioms and qualifies as having metaphysical roots. Does that make all beliefs, religious beliefs? I don’t think so. If it does, then atheism is itself a metaphysical belief and therefore in your view a religious one.

Religion is based on faith. And when religious beliefs are contradicted by material observation, the religious person will reject the material observation and hold to his religious beliefs come what may. When corroborative evidence stacks up against socialist theory then I’ll abandon it. That’s not a religious view.

I don’t know what your understanding of Socialism is but my Socialism is based on Marxian Historical Materialism, not Metaphysical Materialism (in whatever sense you mean that, because ‘metaphysics’ has many different meanings both historical and contemporary). What most people mean by Metaphysical Materialism is a sixteenth/seventeenth century construct and totally different in its historical roots and in its logical foundations from Marxian Materialism.

In case you really don’t know, Marxian Materialism asserts that before mankind can engage in any other kind of activity, he has to satisfy his material needs, for food, clothing, etc. It also asserts that in the process of meeting those needs he forms social relationships and the nature of those relationships are reflected ideologically in his belief structures. In principle, those are physical not metaphysical assertions. They appear pretty self- evident to me and insofar as they are testable the evidence seems to hold. I’ll stick with them till someone comes along with evidence to prove me wrong – just in the way a honest atheist would.

24/04/07 Hi JH
Yes you do seem to find what I write baffling. Just to baffle you further, I am an atheist myself, and every bit as critical of crimes committed on behalf of whatever religion. I met this ‘spiritual experience’ caused by the state of the brain c/o David Gelernter, AI expert, in his The Muse in the Machine – great stuff, no problem with that. My problem with socialist fundamentalist materialists is just that, they/you are religious too, wedded to a materialist metaphysics – I seem to remember Robin Cox pointing this out, never making any impression of course, as one doesn’t with other religious people. Chris

23/04/07 Science can be used so well to devalue. According to science our emotions are little more than controlled impulses that can be measured, controlled, simulated and stimulated. yet it is our emotions that control most of our lives and determine the quality of our existence.

So just because some small minded , pot brained scientist claims to have discovered so and so, doest make him or her right. Sometimes [perhaps all the time?] we need to take a reality take, and the reality is this, the sum total of mankind’s collective knowledge is just a small drop in the ocean of his nad hers ignorance. or to put it more scientifically.. we are still learning and consistently disprove our own theories. Viva the revolution and the end of dogma Love [though just an emotional blimp ] is the greatest feeling most will ever have. N

Now, Chris, you are back on the WSM Forum with your baffledy boofeldy goo. I can’t really bring myself to read most of your posts, since you seem to be always on the wrong side of every discussion, god-willing.

Me, I am on the right side. God does not exist and the belief in god is a destructive belief – used to justify all sorts of moral monstrosities, including murdering our fellow human beings on behalf of Jahweh, God and Allah and all those other silly euphemisms.

A few years back there was an NDP member (left wing reformist) of parliament in Canada, who had to have her teeth fixed. Sitting in the dentist’s chair she had a powerful and realistic experience of god, quit politics, registered in a theological college to become a brain-washer on behalf of god and got all sorts of publicity for people like you. Shortly after being on the CBC, national radio, a medical doctor telephoned in and explained categorically that the brain had been mapped decades ago and he explained the origin of the sensations she had experienced. It was the materialistic explanation of an understanding mammal. Of course, what he said was ignored completely and she was given lots more interviews, spouting the beliefs of people who want to believe in a divine being.

Well, now all the socialists who believe in Big Bob in the cabbage patch can give up that rebuttal and go to pure science. You will find it on the internet under the name Michael Persinger. I have only dipped into a couple of items in what appears to be pages and pages of scientific data.

Michael Persinger has a vision – the Almighty isn’t dead, he’s an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.

“Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use – Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations – describing the presence as one’s grandfather, for instance – while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.”

“It may seem sacrilegious and presumptuous to reduce God to a few ornery synapses, but modern neuroscience isn’t shy about defining our most sacred notions – love, joy, altruism, pity – as nothing more than static from our impressively large cerebrums. Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal – aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it.”

So, dear Chris, you now don’t have to be lovey-dovey with the metaphysicians anymore, and try to slip them into the materialist fold. Now you can oppose their beliefs and explain to them that to believe in what does not exist is tantamount to being insane.