Changes

==Defining matter==

==Defining matter==

The [[nature]] and definition of [[matter]] have been subject to much debate [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm}, as have other key [[concepts]] in [[science]] and [[philosophy]]. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of ([[hyle]]), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism) [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9041771], or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents ([[atomism]])? [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-21]\

The [[nature]] and definition of [[matter]] have been subject to much debate [https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm}, as have other key [[concepts]] in [[science]] and [[philosophy]]. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of ([[hyle]]), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism) [https://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9041771], or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents ([[atomism]])? [https://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-21]\

[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-22 ''Dictionary of the History of Ideas'':Atomism in the Seventeenth Century]

[https://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-22 ''Dictionary of the History of Ideas'':Atomism in the Seventeenth Century]

[http://people.umass.edu/schaffer/papers/Fundamental.pdf Article by a philosopher who opposes atomism]

[https://people.umass.edu/schaffer/papers/Fundamental.pdf Article by a philosopher who opposes atomism]

[http://www.abstractatom.com/buddhist_atomism_and_the_r_theory_of_time.htm Information on Buddhist atomism]

[https://www.abstractatom.com/buddhist_atomism_and_the_r_theory_of_time.htm Information on Buddhist atomism]

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/ Article on traditional Greek atomism]

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/ Article on traditional Greek atomism]

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-modern/ Atomism from the 17th to the 20th Century at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Does it have intrinsic properties [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on substance theory][http://www.friesian.com/essence.htm The Friesian School on Substance and Essence], or is it lacking them ([[prima materia]])?

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-modern/ Atomism from the 17th to the 20th Century at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Does it have intrinsic properties [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on substance theory][https://www.friesian.com/essence.htm The Friesian School on Substance and Essence], or is it lacking them ([[prima materia]])?

Without question science has made unexpected discoveries about matter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or [[common-sense]] concepts of matter as "disproving the existence of matter". However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated.

Without question science has made unexpected discoveries about matter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or [[common-sense]] concepts of matter as "disproving the existence of matter". However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated.

All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are [[fermions]] or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in [[quantum field theory]] are [[bosons]]. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind.  However it is now known that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such "matter", and the majority of the universe is composed of [[Dark Matter]] and [[Dark Energy]] - with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar ("traditional matter") - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from [[Relativity]] and [[quantum field theory]].  But if the definition of "matter" is extended to "anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter" then there is no reason ''in principle'' why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as "matter"

All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are [[fermions]] or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in [[quantum field theory]] are [[bosons]]. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind.  However it is now known that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such "matter", and the majority of the universe is composed of [[Dark Matter]] and [[Dark Energy]] - with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar ("traditional matter") - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from [[Relativity]] and [[quantum field theory]].  But if the definition of "matter" is extended to "anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter" then there is no reason ''in principle'' why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as "matter"

Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.[http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html]  

Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.[https://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html]  

==Criticism and alternatives ==

==Criticism and alternatives ==

[[Kant]] argued against all three forms of materialism, normal idealism (which he contrasts with his "transcendental idealism") and dualism.[[Critique of Pure Reason]] (A379, p352 NKS translation).  

[[Kant]] argued against all three forms of materialism, normal idealism (which he contrasts with his "transcendental idealism") and dualism.[[Critique of Pure Reason]] (A379, p352 NKS translation).  

"If, however, as commonly happens, we seek to extend the concept of dualism, and take it in the transcendental sense, neither it nor the two counter-alternatives; pneumatism [idealism] on the one hand, materialism on the other; would have any sort of basis [...] Neither the transcendental object which underlies outer appearances nor that which underlies inner [[intuition]], is in itself either [[matter]] or a [[thinking]] [[being]], but a ground (to us unknown)..."  However, Kant also argues that change and [[time]] require an enduring substrate..[http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT7], and does so in connection with his Refutation of Idealism.

"If, however, as commonly happens, we seek to extend the concept of dualism, and take it in the transcendental sense, neither it nor the two counter-alternatives; pneumatism [idealism] on the one hand, materialism on the other; would have any sort of basis [...] Neither the transcendental object which underlies outer appearances nor that which underlies inner [[intuition]], is in itself either [[matter]] or a [[thinking]] [[being]], but a ground (to us unknown)..."  However, Kant also argues that change and [[time]] require an enduring substrate..[https://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT7], and does so in connection with his Refutation of Idealism.

[[Postmodern]]/[[poststructuralist]] thinkers also express a skepticism about any all-encompassing metaphysical scheme.

[[Postmodern]]/[[poststructuralist]] thinkers also express a skepticism about any all-encompassing metaphysical scheme.

===Other ontologies===

===Other ontologies===

'''Bundle Theory'''. It can be argued that it is the properties of  material bodies, such as size and shape, which are perceived, and not the material substrate itself. [[John Locke|Locke]] said we "know not what" the basic substance is.[http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb2c23.htm] As [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]] wrote "I acknowledge it is possible we might perceive all things just as we do now, though there was no Matter in the world; neither can I conceive, if there be Matter, how it should produce any [[idea]] in our [[mind]]s". If mind-independent properties (properly speaking property-instances or [[tropes]]) are held to exist

'''Bundle Theory'''. It can be argued that it is the properties of  material bodies, such as size and shape, which are perceived, and not the material substrate itself. [[John Locke|Locke]] said we "know not what" the basic substance is.[https://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb2c23.htm] As [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]] wrote "I acknowledge it is possible we might perceive all things just as we do now, though there was no Matter in the world; neither can I conceive, if there be Matter, how it should produce any [[idea]] in our [[mind]]s". If mind-independent properties (properly speaking property-instances or [[tropes]]) are held to exist

in association with each other but without a material substrate, [[bundle theory]] results. If bundle theory is shown to be illogical or inconceivable, the existence of a substrate is thereby demonstrated conceptually, despite the unpercievability of matter per se.

in association with each other but without a material substrate, [[bundle theory]] results. If bundle theory is shown to be illogical or inconceivable, the existence of a substrate is thereby demonstrated conceptually, despite the unpercievability of matter per se.

Some critics object to materialism as part of an overly skeptical, narrow or [[reductionism|reductivist]] approach to theorizing, rather than to the ontological claim that matter is the only substance.

Some critics object to materialism as part of an overly skeptical, narrow or [[reductionism|reductivist]] approach to theorizing, rather than to the ontological claim that matter is the only substance.

Particle physicist and [[theology|theologian]]  [[John Polkinghorne]] objects to what he calls ''promissory materialism''; claims that materialistic science ''will'' eventually be able to explain [[phenomena]] it has not so far been able to explain. However, critics of materialism are equally guilty of prognosticating that it will ''never'' be able to explain certain phenomena " Over a hundred years ago [[William James]] saw clearly that science would never resolve the [[mind-body dichotomy|mind-body problem]]".[http://www.designinference.com/documents/1999.10.spiritual_machines.htm Dembski, W. Are We Spiritual Machines] He prefers [[dual-aspect monism]] to materialism. [http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm]]  

Particle physicist and [[theology|theologian]]  [[John Polkinghorne]] objects to what he calls ''promissory materialism''; claims that materialistic science ''will'' eventually be able to explain [[phenomena]] it has not so far been able to explain. However, critics of materialism are equally guilty of prognosticating that it will ''never'' be able to explain certain phenomena " Over a hundred years ago [[William James]] saw clearly that science would never resolve the [[mind-body dichotomy|mind-body problem]]".[https://www.designinference.com/documents/1999.10.spiritual_machines.htm Dembski, W. Are We Spiritual Machines] He prefers [[dual-aspect monism]] to materialism. [https://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm]]  

The psychologist [[Imants Barušs]] suggests that "materialists tend to indiscriminately apply a 'pebbles in a box' schema to explanations of reality even though such a schema is known to be incorrect in general for physical phenomena. Thus, materialism cannot explain matter, let alone anomalous phenomena or subjective experience, but remains entrenched in academia largely for political reasons.

The psychologist [[Imants Barušs]] suggests that "materialists tend to indiscriminately apply a 'pebbles in a box' schema to explanations of reality even though such a schema is known to be incorrect in general for physical phenomena. Thus, materialism cannot explain matter, let alone anomalous phenomena or subjective experience, but remains entrenched in academia largely for political reasons.

==Quote==

==Quote==

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial [[consciousness]] of the [[mind]] which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not [[idea|think]], [[creativity|create]], [[dream]], aspire, [[ideal]]ize, hunger for [[truth]], or thirst for [[justice|righteousness]]. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of [[eternal]] progression the sublime task of finding [[God]] and striving to be like him. Machines are never [[intellectual]], [[emotion]]al, [[beauty|aesthetic]], [[Ethics|ethical]], moral, or [[spiritual]].[http://urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper195.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper195.html&line=187#mfs]

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial [[consciousness]] of the [[mind]] which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not [[idea|think]], [[creativity|create]], [[dream]], aspire, [[ideal]]ize, hunger for [[truth]], or thirst for [[justice|righteousness]]. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of [[eternal]] progression the sublime task of finding [[God]] and striving to be like him. Machines are never [[intellectual]], [[emotion]]al, [[beauty|aesthetic]], [[Ethics|ethical]], moral, or [[spiritual]].[https://urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=https://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper195.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper195.html&line=187#mfs]

==See also==

==See also==

==Notes==

==Notes==

# Turner, M. S. (2007). Quarks and the cosmos. Science 315, 59–61. [http://www.stolaf.edu/events/sciencesymposium/speakers.html]

# Turner, M. S. (2007). Quarks and the cosmos. Science 315, 59–61. [https://www.stolaf.edu/events/sciencesymposium/speakers.html]

#Mary Midgley The Myths We Live By.

#Mary Midgley The Myths We Live By.

#Dominique Urvoy, "The Rationality of Everyday Life: The Andalusian Tradition? (Aropos of Hayy's First Experiences)", in Lawrence I. Conrad (1996), The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Ḥayy Ibn Yaqẓān, pp. 38-46, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004093001.

#Dominique Urvoy, "The Rationality of Everyday Life: The Andalusian Tradition? (Aropos of Hayy's First Experiences)", in Lawrence I. Conrad (1996), The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Ḥayy Ibn Yaqẓān, pp. 38-46, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004093001.

# "Matter". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm.  

# "Matter". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm.  

# Concise Britannica on hylomorphism

# Concise Britannica on hylomorphism

# Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Atomism: Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century

# Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Atomism: Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century

# Dictionary of the Philosophy of mind -- "Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably"

# Dictionary of the Philosophy of mind -- "Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably"

# Is Religion Dangerous? p 91

# Is Religion Dangerous? p 91

#  "Materialism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Materialism.  

#  "Materialism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Materialism.  

# Gunasekara

# Gunasekara

# see Critique of Pure Reason where he gives a "refutation of idealism" in pp345-52 (1st Ed) and pp 244-7 (2nd Ed) in the Norman Kemp Smith edition

# see Critique of Pure Reason where he gives a "refutation of idealism" in pp345-52 (1st Ed) and pp 244-7 (2nd Ed) in the Norman Kemp Smith edition

* Flanagan, Owen (1991). The Science of the Mind. 2nd edition Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

* Flanagan, Owen (1991). The Science of the Mind. 2nd edition Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

* Fodor, J.A. (1974) Special Sciences, Synthese, Vol.28.

* Fodor, J.A. (1974) Special Sciences, Synthese, Vol.28.

* Gunasekara, Victor A. (2001) "Buddhism and the Modern World". Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching". 18 January 2008 [http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/basicteaching11.htm].

* Gunasekara, Victor A. (2001) "Buddhism and the Modern World". Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching". 18 January 2008 [https://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/basicteaching11.htm].

* Kim, J. (1994) Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 52.

* Kim, J. (1994) Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 52.

* Lange, Friedrich A.,(1925) The History of Materialism. New York, Harcourt, Brace, & Co.

* Lange, Friedrich A.,(1925) The History of Materialism. New York, Harcourt, Brace, & Co.

*Flanagan, Owen (1991). ''The Science of the Mind''.  2nd edition  Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

*Flanagan, Owen (1991). ''The Science of the Mind''.  2nd edition  Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

*Fodor, J.A. (1974) Special Sciences,  ''Synthese'',  Vol.28.

*Fodor, J.A. (1974) Special Sciences,  ''Synthese'',  Vol.28.

*Gunasekara, Victor A. (2001) "Buddhism and the Modern World". ''Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching". 18 January 2008 <http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/basicteaching11.htm>.

*Gunasekara, Victor A. (2001) "Buddhism and the Modern World". ''Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching". 18 January 2008 <https://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/basicteaching11.htm>.

*Kim, J. (1994) Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction, ''Philosophy and Phenomenological Research'', Vol. 52.

*Kim, J. (1994) Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction, ''Philosophy and Phenomenological Research'', Vol. 52.

*Lange, Friedrich A.,(1925) ''The History of Materialism''. New York, Harcourt, Brace, & Co.  

*Lange, Friedrich A.,(1925) ''The History of Materialism''. New York, Harcourt, Brace, & Co.  

==External links==

==External links==

*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Stanford Encyclopedia article on Physicalism]

*[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Stanford Encyclopedia article on Physicalism]

*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative Stanford Encyclopedia article on  Eliminative Materialism]

*[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative Stanford Encyclopedia article on  Eliminative Materialism]

*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html Philosophical Materialism (by Richard C. Vitzthum)]

*[https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html Philosophical Materialism (by Richard C. Vitzthum)]

*[http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html Dictionary of the Philosophy of Mind on Materialism]

*[https://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html Dictionary of the Philosophy of Mind on Materialism]

[[Category: Philosophy]]

[[Category: Philosophy]]