I feel like I understand communist theory pretty well at a basic level, and I believe in it, but I just don’t see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter. I don’t believe in matter and I’m still a communist. And it seems that in the 21st century most people believe in materialism but not communism. What part of “people should have access to the stuff they need to live” requires believing that such stuff is real? After all, there are nonmaterial industries and they still need communism. Workers in the music industry are producing something that nearly everyone can agree only exists in our heads. And they’re still exploited by capital, despite musical instruments being relatively cheap these days, because capital owns the system of distribution networks and access to consumers that is the means of profitability for music. Spotify isn’t material, it’s a computer program. It’s information. It’s a thoughtform. Yet it’s still a means of production that ought to be seized for the liberation of the musician worker. What does materialism have to do with any of this?

  • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well I don’t believe in spacetime either. I think it’s a mental construct. In the Information age, much of the means of production are explicitly, indisputably made of information. Agreements to buy, sell, and distribute which form the basis of capitalism are social constructs, existing only as products of human thought. Belief in currency, and capital, and wealth, is the driving force of history. That’s part of culture.

    • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t believe in spacetime either. I think it’s a mental construct

      Outside of a misunderstanding of materialism, what does this mean? Like, do you not believe that time is a dimension of space? That was the big breakthrough of Einsteins theory of relativity. He proved that gravity only works if time is a dimension of space.

      • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, Einstein’s theory is beautiful. It’s elegant, and there’s a lot of truth to it. It accurately predicts our future perceptions within relativistic situations, far better than Newton’s theory. However, that’s all it is - perception. Einstein accurately described the interface of our minds and created a model we can use to better use that interface. But understanding an interface is not the same as understanding the truth beneath the interface. That’s probably why Einstein’s theory can’t account for quantum science.

        • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          interface of our minds

          What? It’s not just perception, it’s repeatable measurements. Anyone on earth, even a machine, can run the same experiments (or for astrophysics, observe the same phenomenon) and get the same numbers.

          I suppose technically it’s just a model, but if it answers all of our questions it seems to be correct.

          That’s probably why Einstein’s theory can’t account for quantum science.

          No, that’s because that’s a different problem entirely. Though all models of quantum physics assume that time is a dimension of space as well.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not just perception, it’s repeatable measurements

            A repeatable perception of measurements. To think that perceiving something enough times in a row makes it true is a fallacy. Every time I load this here silver disk into my DVD player, I perceive Luke Skywalker lifting a rock with his mind. That doesn’t make my perception true, no matter how repeatable it is.

            Anyone on earth, even a machine, can run the same experiments

            You mean you can perceive a machine running the same experiments and you will perceive the machine agreeing with your perceptions. That’s hardly an unbiased experiment.

            • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              I perceive Luke Skywalker lifting a rock with his mind

              No you don’t. You perceive a person standing next to a rock that is lifting upwards. More accurately you perceived photons hitting your sensory neurons that made a pattern that your brain interpreted as a person standing and a rock floating. A narrative told you it was Skywalker picking up a rock with his mind. If the narrative was that the rock was angry and was going to attack Luke, you would interpret that instead.

              A repeatable observation does not change no matter the narrative that is assigned to it. I see no other possible explanation for that that besides the observation being the truth, or close enough that any distinction is inconsequential.

              • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A repeatable observation does not change no matter the narrative that is assigned to it. I see no other possible explanation for that that besides the observation being the truth, or close enough that any distinction is inconsequential.

                So if I were able to present a narrative which changes my observations of the world’s existence, then you would be wrong to say the world’s existence is true?

                • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If you presented a narrative such that the measurement of a phenomenon changed, that would call certain things into doubt. I want to be clear, in the domain of scientific inquiry we are discussing an observation as a measurement of some kind. It can be quantified as a number. The narrative should be effective on anyone taking the observation.

                  As for the world’s existence, I can very clearly touch things outside of myself, I have nerves that are designed to send sense information to my brain. I can clearly measure the location of my desk in my room and my distance from it using a tape measure. There is no narrative that would, given a tape measure, cause anyone to observe a different distance between me and my desk.

                  • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    in the domain of scientific inquiry we are discussing an observation as a measurement of some kind. It can be quantified as a number.

                    While some have remarked on the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics at representing the natural world, it is not perfect. For example, numbers are hardly useful in the field of psychiatry. Given that we are entering into an investigation pertaining strongly to the mind, I believe we should adopt at least some practices from psychiatry, including the practice of taking qualitative measurements.

                    The narrative should be effective on anyone taking the observation.

                    Anyone who is capable of actually entertaining the narrative, you mean. No scientific proof will ever convince a flat earther that the horizon is curved, because they are incapable of entertaining the competing narrative. Likewise, my experiment ought to work on anyone, as long as they are capable of taking my narrative seriously. If they’re unwilling to keep an open mind, of course they’ll keep perceiving the same thing, just like the flat earther.

    • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ultimately, though, all the infrastructure to support that exists in the material world. You cannot have a modern information age economy without the material basis of mines to dig up the raw material for those computers, factories to assemble those computers, and power to run those computers.

      • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, but the mines, factories, and power are just a symbol created by the human brain to abstract away reality from our perceptions.

        • Abraxiel@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          symbol created by the human brain to abstract away reality from our perceptions.

          what do you mean by this?

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, let’s start from within a materialist framework because you’ll understand what I’m saying better if I pretend I believe in quantum theory. That mine, and that factory, are really just a big bunch of quantum strings. Or if you prefer simpler science, they’re a bunch of atoms. It’s the human brain which creates the label “mine” to assign to that hole in the dirt, and “factory” to that lump of metal. It’s a symbol we invented. That’s the simple part. The complicated part is that the quantum strings are symbols we invented too, but that would take too long to explain unless you’ve read Donald Hoffman’s theory

            • Abraxiel@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Together, MUI theory and Conscious Realism form the foundation for an overall theory that the physical world is not objective but is an epiphenomenon (secondary phenomenon) caused by consciousness. Hoffman has said that some form of reality may exist, but may be completely different from the reality our brains model and perceive.[9] Reality may not be made of space-time and physical objects.[3] Through supposing that consciousness is fundamental, Hoffman provides a possible solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which wrestles with the notion of why we seem to have conscious immediate experiences, and how sentient beings could arise from seemingly non-sentient matter. Hoffman argues that consciousness is more fundamental than the objects and patterns perceived by consciousness.[10][better source needed] We have conscious experiences because consciousness is posited as a fundamental aspect of reality. The problem of how sentient beings arise from seemingly non-sentient matter is also addressed because it alters the notion of non-sentient matter. Perceptions of non-sentient matter are mere byproducts of consciousness and don’t necessarily reflect reality. This means the causal notion of non-sentient matter developing into sentient beings is open to question.

              This stuff? I’m not convinced that consciousness is more fundamental than matter. There are certainly things we do in order to be able to parse the world by reducing things into discrete ideas, categories, etc. and this is necessarily imperfect. But if you want to engage with the world as we experience it, materialist tools are the best ones we have for understanding it with any reliability. In the context of a political project, what else are you going to use to inform your behavior besides observations of reality?

              • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yep, that’s a summary of the end of Hoffman’s books. It’s missing the middle and beginning, though, which explain the problems with realism and answer your question.

                Hoffman says that we must take our perceptions seriously, but not literally. I know that my perceptions are a tool to help me survive and reproduce, because the theory of evolution holds true whether the world is material or ideal. So if I see a snake in the grass, I can trust my perceptions to tell me that my life may be in danger. I can trust them because that’s what they’re for, warning me about life threatening situations. But should I take the content literally? No. There’s no such thing as a snake. There’s something there, and it’s something that could kill me, but it isn’t a snake. It’s a thing more complicated than a snake which my perceptions have simplified for my benefit. I trust my perceptions to help me with survival, but not with truth.

                  • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We are talking about survival and prosperity for all, in a context unlike that for which our perceptions have evolved. When it comes to the threats of civilisation, like “Am I going to make enough money for rent”, our brains are poorly equipped to handle that situation. Just as a fish is poorly equipped to survive on land. It is in the new context of the civilised world that we must begin using our power of reason instead of relying on nature’s instincts.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh yes, I believe in taking the rules of my perceptual interface very seriously. If people believe in mines, then I get to work on computers. See, that’s culture creating labour relations. That’s what I’m talking about with idealistic communism.

    • mah [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      yes, we believe capital is relational ofc, and historical situated. there is nothing natural or normal about it. it’s a phase, a period, an arrangement. But culture is a product of the relationships of production, that’s our epistemology. Humans do stuff, how “we create” our world (so, our labor) is what really matters. I hope it’s clear now.

      • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We create the world by thinking about it. Mothers, teachers, priests, musicians, historians, scientists, analysts, artists, philosophers, and programmers are all workers, they all perform labour, and they all spend all day doing nothing but shaping human thought (except for mothers, who also have to raise the children). They spend all day producing culture.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well if he’s not a communist then I’m not going to agree with him. Ownership of the means of production by the workers is essential to a fair society, as is the abolition of class, currency, and the state. Wealth must be distributed from each according to ability to each according to need.

    • heartheartbreak [fae/faer]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it’s a matter of scope you’re not considering. Mechanical materialism is what you are referring to when you are creating a division between mechanical substance and metaphysical substance. Marx draws on Hegel who draws on Spinoza who says that mechanical substance and metaphysical substance are composed of the same thing, while understanding that metaphysical substance is self generative and not determined by mechanical substance in and of itself.

      Marx’s dialectical materialism is a unity of social reality meaning it’s an understanding that there is both a true form of existence in the material world with complex social concepts existing as a part of that reality. The point of this epistemology is that it helps us understand where truth comes from (that is beyond metaphysical symbolic truth), which is a useful tool in actually changing the world.

      Sure there are mystic truths beyond the scope of Marxism, but they are functionally useless in changing the world which is the primary goal of Marxism.

      • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you saying that property dualism is compatible with Marx’s materialism?

        Sure there are mystic truths beyond the scope of Marxism, but they are functionally useless in changing the world which is the primary goal of Marxism.

        Oh, now this seems like a concrete claim we can test. So, would propaganda fall within one of these mystic truths or within Marxian materialism?

        • heartheartbreak [fae/faer]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Marxian materialism. It is not property dualism because in my view Marx agrees with Hegel that property dualism subjects the metaphysical to be subordinate to the physical. Propaganda is a metaphysical notion informed by physical observations but those also physical observations get their character from the notion. It’s a bit ridiculous to assume propaganda, which is defined by its capability to propagate ideology, is a purely physical thing and would involve a ridiculous amount of loopholes to explain within a mechanical materialist worldview. Marxian materialism doesn’t hold a primacy of one or the other but doesn’t claim an agnosticism to the difference, rather there is a very specific dialectic between the two.

          “It is dualist because it is monist. Marx’s ontological monism consisted in affirming the irreducibility of Being to thought, and, at the same time, in reintegrating thoughts with the real as a particular form of human activity.” Sartre, Critique of Dialectic Reason

          Philosophy is not exactly my strong point but I think you might get a kick at least out of Critique of Dialectic Reason if you are trying to triangulate how you feel about Marxian materialism. As you are now, you are completely denying the character of the real as possible to be understood at all and reducing it to a matrix of symbols completely detached from the real at all, which doesn’t incorporate that while the symbolic and social reality is the lens with which our minds functions to make “sense” of the real there still exists a real that informs those symbols at the same time.

          Or in other words how can you possibly hope to change anything when you can only ever know nothing.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or in other words how can you possibly hope to change anything when you can only ever know nothing.

            There’s an old saying from chaos magic, and maybe you’ve heard it in Assassin’s Creed as the philosophy of the Assassins too: “nothing is true. everything is permitted.”

            If I believe in nothing, then I can choose to believe in anything. I find unrealism to be revolutionary.

            • heartheartbreak [fae/faer]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think that is a great basis for revolutionizing our ideas, and in many many ways I adhere to that same ethos. I think it needs to be dialectically balanced however with the need to enact real social change on a society wide scale, where things are true given certain assumptions. While the assumptions may be problematic in certain contexts, the outcomes are undeniably real and that is the strength of Marxism. We can deny the symbolic as “truth” but we can’t deny the real no matter how we try.

              • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why not a simple relativist answer to the problem?

                “I want to have a revolution because capitalism causes me to perceive myself and others as suffering. I have a subjective distaste for suffering and choose to impose my personal views upon the world by supporting communism. I will use the scientific method to determine which actions of mine reduce perceived suffering, and then I will do those actions.”

      • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And I say that human behaviour is not defined by whatever may be real, it’s only defined by human perception, which does not align with whatever may be real if anything is.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            According to conventional neuroscience, the brain is somehow capable of transforming 130 million binary nervous system signals into the sensation of sight, without having been taught to do so. Likewise, the interface theory of perception holds that the mind is capable of transforming whatever does exist into the perceptual interface we see today.

                • commiespammer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But there’s not an absence of stimuli. Genes encode for light receptors, which respond to light. This triggers something that is then amplified as a chemical signal, which is then sent to the brain, where the signals are then processed into an ‘image’.