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?
If we cannot currently influence this interface, and as of our current perception it is effectively one and the same with reality, why is this at all relevant to Marxist materialism?
It wouldn’t be relevant if we couldn’t influence it, but we can influence it.
Wait, so, on what grounds does this author you mentioned make the argument of evolutionary fitness over truth? How did they even come to the conclusion that evolutionary fitness is a real thing? The existence of their argument seems heavily reliant on the existence of at least an environment which selects for things in a way similar or identical to evolution, implying an objective reality which can kill, regardless of how hard a subject tries to banish it with their mind
https://hexbear.net/comment/3894130
You could literally argue that anything is real or anything isn’t by that logic. It’s unfalsifiable, and therefore not provable, either
There has to be some existence in which evolution selected for things for it to work
Either way, the argument defeats itself. If we cannot know reality, then there is no reason to believe this aspect of reality is true either, and therefore no reason to believe that we cannot know reality etc etc
Some, yes. But not one that carries the cultural baggage with which you associate the term “existence”. It does not imply that there exists matter, or nonconscious entities.
If we are to propose that reality exists, then we must have some consistent theory of reality that does not invalidate itself. Hoffman proves that mainstream realism invalidates itself. In the absence of a coherent model, the null hypothesis of solipsism is supported by Occam’s razor. You seem to think realism is the null hypothesis, which is as strange as it is to say that a teapot orbiting mars is the null hypothesis.
How would the last human see anything without any data being transferred between their “simulation” and the other people’s “simulations”? Some sort of non-conscious property must exist for that to work
The skyscrapers, dams, and bridges are representations of what may be some unknown part of some unknown conscious entity, according to Hoffman. Hoffman does not believe consciousness is exclusive to human beings.
And what proof does Hoffman have for there being no such thing as a non-conscious entity? Surely such a claim is just as unprovable as stating there is. We are incapable of understanding the majority of reality, remember?
Where is Hoffman getting these ideas from? I Can buy the idea that we have an incomplete and possibly even entirely false perception of reality, but the rest of this is completely unfalsifiable.