Keith Ward - Metaphysics vs. Materialism?

Metaphysics asks the most profound questions, then uses sophisticated philosophical analysis to seek the deepest truths. What happens when metaphysics trains its analytical guns on ‘materialism’, the claim that only the physical is real? What are the metaphysical arguments for and against materialism?

Keith Ward is a British philosopher, theologian, pastor, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and (since 1972) an ordained priest of the Church of England.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[bennyskim]

The biggest win for metaphysics in the 21st century so far has been the mass realization that materialism has obvious limits in terms of its explanatory power as a set of theories: Can't explain consciousness, can't explain something from nothing, needs 4 fundamental forces (AKA "miracles"), Higgs did not complete particle theory as predicted in the 60s, and my favorite: How is it that a Big Bang absolutely occurred if physics is relative (from some perspectives it wouldn't be big, wouldn't bang, or hasn't happened yet) - we already know there is no such thing as an absolute beginning of time, that even measuring the order of events (AKA an "arrow of time") depends on the relative object:observer relationship. Imagine 2 lights a million miles apart and both of them turn on - which lit up first? Completely depends on which one you are closer to - the very concept of order of events is not an absolute measurement.

You can choose an arbitrary orientation/velocity/etc. in the way we arbitrarily designate Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) for the standard time zone. We could decide on a point and velocity etc. in the universe from which we say "this is absolute spacetime" but nothing about it would be special in reality.

The possibility that mind precedes matter could completely change what we think about the concept of "objects" in "time". Instead of things existing out there already as objects in the universe that we can detect with our senses, this notion says there are really just different signals that we experience as objects, when the signal is consistent enough and passes all the tests, we can see the world as a bunch of objects, and it's more useful for survival than just believing every signal coming in from sense devices in real-time - because you would be constantly tricked if you didn't have a remembered self to serve as a "source of truth", who remembers the knowledge and pays attention to novelty, and can experience reality for itself. Consciousness of self and environment takes about 2 years for a human to just begin to figure out.

I like where Keith Ward was going around 2 minutes, and would add that these constructions are always reductions, never the real thing. You can graph all sorts of things with nodes and edges, and the values can translate perfectly to reality - they describe it. But nothing about the graph is the object, and all of the rules and laws are just axioms - they eventually fall apart, at some space or time scale. It's somewhat like people who think the earth is flat: They measure flatness everywhere, because the axiom by which they determine truth only works locally and does not convey the curvature at that space scale. Materialism is the "flat earth" of physics - a short-sighted observation that we will move on from when we can see the bigger picture.

[arthurwieczorek]

Is materialism naturalism, or a foundation for naturalism? How, if at all, is idealism connected with naturalism? How, if at all, is it connected to theology? What does idealism have to say about history?

[MrSanford]

Basically, if the mind is matter- how does pure material matter, have a conception of the abstract future and abstract past ? It would have to mean that time is matter also in order for it to make an impression on pure matter.

[pesilaratnayake]

Seems like Robert Lawrence Kuhn pushes back more nowadays than in the past. Makes for better interviews.

[ezreality]

Good podcast, Robert Thank you... "There is no out there, out there..." John A. Wheeler

[chester-chickfunt]

More excellent content from Closer To Truth, as expected. My question is...why can't our existence be both material and metaphysical? If we have different sets of realities for atomic and subatomic physics, which we do, then it seems likely we have both states of existence at our level, as we are emergent products of subatomic and atomic source materials.

[edwardlawrence]

Metaphysics is a general (philosophical ) theory of what we know. Whether reality is energy or matter is a metaphysical question. Materialism is the theory that everything is matter; energy, mind, consciousness etc. are material.

[stephenkagan]

What is the Ontological status of Phenomenological content? There are is certainly consistency in the structures of our conscious experience. We can even see this in how AI breaks down the visual field for navigation.

Now, one could say that Archetypes are one example but there are more. In my own research I've found probabilities in psychedelic experiences within the categories of Entities, Objects, Environments, Passageways, Processes and Feelings. What is the ontological statues of these phenomenological categories and the consistent content within them?

Is there a form of Integrated Information Theory that can be build that builds a bridge between Idealism and Materialsm?

[votingcitizen]

I comes down to whether there is an objective reality or not. Presuming dependency on mental events fundamentally denies an objective reality. The result is the same with religion and supernatural thinking - confusion about what is real and what is perceived.

[arthurwieczorek]

"Metaphysics attempts to answer the question, What is ultimately real?" Is what is ultimately real, what it ultimately important? Is what is ultimately real the lowest foundational level of your worldview? It is my supposisition that everyone holds a metaphysics explicitly and implicitly, and they are frequently not the same.

[kallianpublico]

What things in common experience do not rely on "coherentism": mental abstractions about the world, our selves and the relation between our selves and the world?
Do we all experience hunger, thirst, sleep, heat, light, cold, static electricity, bites of insects and animals? Irregardless of our mental state/states?
Our body is the fundamental locus of reality. Nature (the Earth) the locus of reality outside our body. Consciousness the arbiter between the two loci.
Is consciousness mental? No. Is consciousness natural? No. Where does consciousness reside?
If consciousness is just the relationship between the body and Nature then is it a coherentism like all knowledge? It is only if consciousness resides outside of our selves and Nature that it does not belong to coherentism. But if it is outside how do humans partake of it?
Is lust in the form of intelligence all that we mean when we talk of consciousness? Or is there something more? Do humans have an access to consciousness outside our body. Outside our lust, intelligence, brain? Not through light and language but through the "absence" of light and language.

[arthurwieczorek]

Idealism: consciousness creates matter, substance. We are not talking Consciousness creates a conception of circumstances. Or Consciousness creates a value. Are there idealist alchemists creating gold? One idealist puts gold on the scale and another only manages copper or feathers.
Does materialism hold there is an 'out there' out there, and idealism hold 'not really'? An 'out there' would imply a common world we all live in, even if we may hold different conceptions of it. I don't know what to say about the opposite.

[adamelliott]

I sometimes think that many of these thinkers and scientists would benefit greatly from at least one controlled psychedelic experience. I bet there would be a lot of progress made in so many different fields of study! 🙂

[misterhill]

#1. Things come in pairs in this universe. Like yin and yang. Yin only or Yang only will be very short lived.
It seems these scientists are stuck with 1 vs the other, left hand vs right hand.
We need both.

#2. What is naturalism? What is nature?
Look up the 500 words book - Dao Te Ching. There are answers.
The book has 2 parts:
Dao: talks about the ways of the universe.
Te: talks about human nature and personal paths.

Ching means book.

[arthurwieczorek]

I always took materialism to be a metaphysics.

[craigb]

Finite minds struggling to understand the infinite. Debates about "the true nature of reality " will go on as long as there are humans alive.

[ResmithSR]

Naturalists are not necessarily hostile to Religion or spiritual beliefs as mentioned in this video. Naturalists believe in monism that Nature is one and the only reality, there is nothing else, no supernatural anything. Many Naturalists like myself are also Humanists and have beliefs which might be characterized as religious or spiritual.

[williamburts]

Reality is just the totality of all existences therefore material phenomena and consciousness are just two sides of the same coin called " reality " but consciousness is the existence that makes reality known and understood therefore the quality of knowledge is the property of consciousness alone. therefore it is the superior existence between the two.

[keithmetcalf]

Still having these conversations in the most important of times! Thanks to my boy RLK and company! 👍

[mark.J]

It should not be a one or the other, both are needed to keep our species viable.