Do Materialists Dream of Etherial Sheep?

Sorry to Phillip K. I think a lot of non-material thinkers believe that materialists can't have a good time. Since we are skeptical of a lot of the things that such individuals enjoy they seem to think that we never have any fun. Not so. Being objective about the world doesn't destroy the value of subjective experience.

The fact that we don't think that our existence is magical doesn't take away from the magic of living.

Let me give you an example.
















I suspect that the first painting needs no introduction, but the one on the left may. The painting to the left is "Lavender Mist" by Jackson Pollock. As way of introduction, Ole Pliny is a very (very, very) minor artist who has sold some of his work over the years. Art is not my vocation nor my hobby. Art for me has always been my emotional outlet. I paint for my own needs. If on occasion one of my works connects to someone, I'm just as likely to give it to them as sell it. The value for me is in the creation of the piece not the end product. That is a very subjective process. To me, art has both an objective worth and a subjective one. I appreciate the former - and enjoy the later.

These two pieces illustrate my meaning. I greatly appreciate and admire Leonardo's skill and his historical importance is unquestionable. But subjectively there is no contest - I would much prefer to have Pollock's painting over my mantel than the "Mona Lisa". That sounds crazy to some, after all, objectively, the "Mona Lisa" is extraordinarily valuable and historically significant. As an investment it would be the best choice. As art it falls flat to me.

Well, not exactly flat but I still enjoy "Lavender Mist" more. Now you are surely convinced that Ole' Pliny is completely wacked. The paintings work emotionally for me for different reasons. The allure of the "Mona Lisa" is that expression. What is she thinking? Leonardo has captured facial ambiguity perfectly. The viewer can create a world to explain that look because it's not an obvious expression that we can easy catalog. It gives us pause. That is masterful. But it's easier than what Pollock does.

Pollock, and the other great abstract painters, have a more difficult task in my opinion. They have to create drama and emotion absent common place cues. There is no expression to capture our interest in "Lavender Mist". And yet, to view it in person, is to be filled with emotion. Emotion created without the benefit of the obvious. That to me is great art. It's very subjective, but so what?

Defending the Blivit!

Over at 'Evangelical Realism', a site I used to visit with some regularity, there is an ongoing battle between some fellow named Alan Roebuck and some familiar faces about the importance of consciousness as a 'proof' of the existence of non-material things which with the usual slight of hand means that God exists. QED and a smug smile. It makes me crazy how people think.

Here's most human thought in a nutshell:

• We make shit up.
• We convince ourselves that the shit we concocted is real.
• We defend the made up shit with logic based upon the inscrutable nature of made up shit.
• We remember the 2 experiences that support the shit and ignore the 12 billion that don't.
• We scoff at skeptics who insist on evidence because shit plays by its own rules.

Did I miss anything?

Let's take an example. There exists a thing called a Blivit. A Blivit, as anyone knows, is 20 pounds of dung in a ten pound bag. We know it exists despite the materialistic limitations of said ten pound bag. The fact that rationally, 20 pounds won't fit is immaterial... A Blivit exists and can be defending through logic. Ontologically, a perfect Blivit must also exist since perfection must exist. Any silly naysayer just doesn't get it because we know it exists through means not limited by ridiculous notions of material evidence. It FEELS like I'm carrying around 20 pounds so it must be true.

Consciousness is another such a concept. Consciousness is not a substance, it is a word. It's a word that was created to describe something long before humans had any knowledge of the underlying physical processes. It’s just a label we insist on clinging to when describing a complex set of neurosensory perceptions created by well studied anatomic and physiologic structures and processes. These processes are accessible to anyone with an interest in neuroanatomy and physiology. These disciplines form the strong basis for taking a material view of the mind. Most (if not all) of the emotions, perceptions, mental states (including deeply religious ones) can be reliably duplicated by stimulation of specific regions of the brain or the application of either neurotransmitters or their analogs. As a corollary, damage to these regions results in predictable alterations in emotion, cognition, perception, notion of self, or even spirituality. These constitute very strong evidence of a material explanation of thought processes. No evidence of any consciousness outside of the constraints of neuroanatomy has ever been demonstrated in any valid test. Claims to such have always been anecdotal, biased or poorly tested. Such claims have not been repeatable nor have they demonstrated any findings that cannot be explained by the neurosciences. Neuroscience experimentation has resulted in enormous support for a material explanation of the mind while other explanations fail to provide any support outside of philosophy debates.

Can you measure consciousness? Who cares! It's a word we made up to describe a bunch of processes that are completely governed by the anatomy and physiology of the brain. These can be measured and studied. It's time to stop studying Blivits.

Natural Election 2012 (July 1, 2011)

Republican Visual Recognition and Talking Points Aid Packages are now available for purchase! No more embarrassing gaffes! An example below:

LEFT: John Wayne Gacy: notorious serial killer,
responsible for the murders of 33 people.

RIGHT: John Wayne: beloved republican icon and actor responsible for the simulated deaths of several hundreds









Real deer in the headlights vs metaphorical..