Idealism or Materialism? Gods or Sufficiently Advanced Aliens?

I mentioned this in another thread relatively recently: I've come up with a solution with which I am satisfied to the question of duality. Gonna copy-paste the whole thing here:

In addition, I've posted on several occasions about the different ways that materialism can give meaningful answers to questions of purpose, meaning, and so on. If anyone wants to read them, I'll find them or maybe I'll pull up a quote or two from some of my older posts that I've saved on a text file (when I write up something that I often discuss with people, I sometimes copy-paste the text to a text file I have on my computer so that I wouldn't have to type up the whole thing each time.)

This is a relevant and exceptionally interesting BBC documentary presented (and, I presume, written/directed) by Jim Al-Khalili, a British science educator and prominent nuclear scientist. The Secret Life of Chaos, which for some reason is divided into 5 parts of about 10 minutes each on You Tube, is a documentary about the ways that simple, chaotic systems can result in complex order naturally without contradiction.

Why is this the case? Does consistency really cause a higher chance of existing?

The concept of matter as usually formulated is un-empirical and antiquated.

How are you defining matter? From what I can tell, the definition keeps changing to be "the stuff there is", whatever we happen to believe that is. I'm not sure what else you want it to be. Unless you're postulating that there isn't stuff?

edited 10th Jun '11 11:17:16 AM by Clarste

Exactly

What's wrong with that? Matter is the stuff there is. Whether that's objects with mass and extension or simply areas of space with certain electrical and nuclear properties.

Counter point.

Though probably a bit less forgiving to those not well versed in philosophical/logic jargon.

Though, I’ll single out the simplified bit at the end. I found it thought provoking.

Anyone can extend that arbitrarily to help prove their point.

edited 10th Jun '11 11:33:03 AM by Justice4243

Yeah, matter isn't usually defined rigorously because this isn't a formal debate. That doesn't mean it can't be defined rigorously, though. I even provided a definition on the last page.

That argument seems to ignore that a reliable brain would be evolutionary selected for.

edited 10th Jun '11 11:36:36 AM by Yej

Since the premise of this line of thinking is to assume as few entities as possible, I will always have to assume the one that requires the least assumptions to back it up and that explains the largest amount of phenomena out of all the theories that are proposed.

If I accept the premise that my dreams are "real", I have to assume a universe in which laws of nature are so complex that they allow the random and (compared to everyday reality,) unrealistic events and features of things, yet at the same time contain enough order to enable the meaningful existence of an advanced (in the sense that it can think, feel, imagine...) intelligence, which is very contradictory if you expect the randomly generated intelligence to endure long enough and in an environment that is appropriate enough for the intelligence to have experiences it can perceive and react to in any extent.

Then, in addition to that, I'll still have to assume that the mind creates/exists in an alternate reality, in which the laws of nature are very strict and in which the mind can only interact with the universe through the body, and in which it can only remain when the body is in a waking state.

If, instead, I assume that the natural world, to which my body is connected, exists, and if I still wish to remove unnecessary dualism (as I do), I'll have to answer the following questions:

Is it plausible that the universe that I'm now experiencing - the natural world - could, without violating its own laws, give rise to my consciousness?

Is it plausible that the alternate realities - dreams, hallucinations, sensory illusions - could be explainable as traits that the mind has due to features of the system (the organism) of which it is part?

As both of those return a "Yes" when these questions are examined through modern knowledge, I can conclude that for practical purposes, the most reasonable model of reality to assume, if one looks at the issue from the perspective that I've chosen, is naturalism (or materialism or physicalism, whichever term you prefer.)

Upon re-reading my answer, it doesn't look like an answer at all.

So here's a simpler answer: Because I'm looking for the theory that explains the most while assuming the least, any universe in which dreams are as real as the natural world would have to be much more complex than a universe in which the natural world gives rise to dreams, as the latter requires less assumptions if any idea of the mechanism that creates dreams can be connected to the laws of nature of the natural world.

edited 10th Jun '11 11:49:06 AM by BestOf

The argument isn't against evolution. If anything, evolution selecting a reliable brain feeds the premise that beliefs are "more likely to be correct".

The whole thing basically feeds some Bayesian equation. Bayesian equations are pretty prone to abuse in the same way Occam's Razor is, so I tend do be more interested in the philosophic and less interested in the logic of the debate.

I'm pretty much a materialist, as I havent encounterd anything that couldn't be explained via the material world.

Define "material world".