Dialectic Materialism? [Archive]

John Nada

7th September 2015, 02:18

Dialectical Materialism is the philosophy of Marxism. It's the interconnection and motion of everything, with different opposing objects that alter each other into something new, rather than isolated and static, hence dialectical. This process exists not merely in the mind, but is in the objective material world, hence materialism.

Engels list three laws:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch02.htm

The transformation of quantity into quality is the addition or subtraction of matter or energy, resulting in something new. Interpenetration of opposites is the interaction of two different things(-3+1=-2). The negation of the negation is the the next sum of the total process(-2*-2=4).

An example, add oxygen(an oxidizer) to hydrogen(a reductant) you get water, along with a lot of heat since the reaction is exothermic. 2H2+O2=2H2O+(heat). Two gasses at room temperature, one donate its spare electron(hydrogen) to an electron acceptor(oxygen) resulting in a change in the quality into a liquid(water) at room temperature. Water can then also oxidize and "rust" a metal like calcium into a metal hydroxide lime, which in turn reduces the water too. 2H2O+Ca=Ca(OH)2+H2+(heat) Yet hydrogen in relation to metals can act as an oxidizer too, H2+Ca=CaH2

This is an example of dialectics, quanity into quality, 4 hydrogens added to 2 oxygen atoms becomes water. A reductant and oxidizer become a more inert compound, interpenetration of opposites. Negation of negation, the much weaker oxidant water combinds with a more powerful reductant calcium to calcium hydroxide aka lime.

Guardia Rossa

7th September 2015, 02:43

Can someone give concrete examples to our comrade?
And to me, in extension? :rolleyes:

RedMaterialist

7th September 2015, 20:45

Hello Im having a hard time fully understanding dialectical materialism. Ive read a lot of explanations online, and even watched some videos, but Im still confused. Can someone please explain it in the simplest terms possible? Sorry to bug you guys, Im new to learning about this stuff.

Here is a very basic explanation. http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm

The link also refers to explanations by Michio Kaku (from the Science Channel,) who is convinced that the universe can be explained by DM.

Thirsty Crow

7th September 2015, 22:10

Dialectical Materialism is the philosophy of Marxism. It's the interconnection and motion of everything, with different opposing objects that alter each other into something new, rather than isolated and static, hence dialectical. This process exists not merely in the mind, but is in the objective material world, hence materialism.Dialectical materialism isn't the philosophy of Marxism (in fact, Marxism doesn't need any particular philosophical grand theory). That should be evident from the uncritical adoption of the exact same laws you list later, which are a part of Hegel's system of absolute idealism (and which make sense in that context, but not in any approach to understanding the world which firmly plants itself within the broadest scientific - therefore materialistic - framework).

One reasonable aspect to it all is the emphasis on mutability and change. Though, it is buried under layers and layers of mystification. As for understanding it, there isn't anything to understand (for example, the so called laws can't be tested, don't explain anything in particular - and in fact don't do any work as auxiliary elements in any explanation - and they were derived not from any systematic observation and subsequent rigorous work on the data, but from the latter day Hermetic philosophy of universal interconnection). You can accept some rather dubious claims and wonder about the actual use of the terms involved (e.g. people equivocating on the use of the term "quality" in defending the so called law; anything and everything can be defended like that). I'd rather advise you to start reading up on the basics of the materialist conception of history. The German Ideology - also thrashing such philosophical ideologies - is a good place to start.

Rafiq

8th September 2015, 01:46

The dialectic, whether in terms of its relation to absolute idealism (which is nothing more than the last stepping stone to historical materialism in bourgeois thought), or so-called "dialectical materialism", is not a formal doctrine - most importantly, it never existed as a positive empirical claim that was put into juxtaposition with the non-dialectical.

It is absolutely ridiculous to criticize the dialectic on grounds that it cannot be "tested". The dialectic is not some kind of externally observable metaphysical force that one must 'test' any more than - virtually every other logic is. One cannot "prove" any kind of logic without presupposing the "rules" that are already implicit in that logic (i.e. Calculus). And why? Simply because logic, like truth, concern only practical matters. Hence why Lenin claims that the truth of dialectical materialism can be found from practice, and practice alone.

That is not to say the opposition to the kind of dialectics often presented is unfounded. Dialectics today has either become a cheap buzzword to excuse the most nonsensical drivel (i.e. some conceive dialectics as some kind of pseudo-oriental logic of opposites living in harmony or whatever), or a formalist doctrine which takes the form of a positive empirical claim that is indeed juxtaposed with non-dialectical forms of thought - subsumed to formal logic all-together. But even Hegel was capable of understanding that formal logic was already a subset of dialectics - it cannot be the other way around anymore than the arithmetic can subsume algebra. One must thoroughly seek a return to our roots: Dialectics is merely a word which describe what must inevitably follow an understanding of the changing of one thing to another (remember that Hegel's dialectic was nothing more than a response not only to the 'contradictions' of reason put forward by Kant, but precisely the necessity of setting Spinoza in motion) - one can call this whatever they please, but it is thoroughly not possible to oppose it as a Marxist.

and they were derived not from any systematic observation and subsequent rigorous work on the data, but from the latter day Hermetic philosophy of universal interconnection

Systemic observation and rigorous work on data will get you a series of empirical facts which themselves rely upon a whole series of unknown contingencies, or they will get you isolated trivialities (That isn't to say they are not important - indeed, Hegel dealt with real empirical facts quite regularly, but he did not pretend they alone were the basis of his method). How one approximates that data, how one concludes a relation between the empirical facts and a wider understanding of their implications - is not to be found in pure, bare neutral observation. The ancient Greeks probably had almost the same access to "data" during the mythic age that they did afterwards, and yet it did not make a difference as far as mathematics was concerned.

Salvaging data itself already presupposes a wide and vast framework of thought that isn't even questioned by the analytical school at all. For example, the entire field of cognitivism has led many scientists to some nasty conclusions - namely regarding "Race and IQ" or "Poverty and IQ" and so on. We get - in general - biological determinism, and an implicit justification for our present circumstances. More generally, in the field of neurology, the "gaps" which empirical science cannot account for (ontological questions), and which - plainly - will never and can never account for, are now being taken up by mysticism and superstition (much as it is vis a vis Quantum science when it relates to ontology, metaphysics, existential questions, etc.). This "science" tells us that there is nothing wrong with this, because "these questions are outside the field of scientific testability". But they none the less occupy an irreversibly important space of human consciousness and existence. "Leave them to the dogs", they think, if they themselves are not complacent as dogs (Like Michio Kaku).

I'd rather advise you to start reading up on the basics of the materialist conception of history.

If dialectics is not testable, then by the same qualifications neither is the materialist conception of history. How does one "test" it in a way that is not already circular reasoning? Dialectics refers to the conception of change on the level of the historic (and therefore) on the level of consciousness. If it were any other way, then the particularities - the logic I should say - of each according historic epoch can only ever be deemed as projections of present-day society. But Marx more than anyone understood that each society has its own inner-logic that is just as sufficient unto itself as present day society is. Understanding how it is possible that the same man which is physiologically identical in two different epochs could exist differently not only in their conditions of life and being, but in their understanding of those - is the point.

One might be tempted to ask what makes Marx or Hegel so special that they can think "outside" their own historic circumstances in order to understand previous societies in a way that doesn't confer merely projecting particularities of today upon the past. This question - which was thoroughly dealt with by the Young Hegelians, exists for the same reason that Hegel ultimately (whether he wanted to or not) ended up justifying the world - and for the same reason that Marx and many Young Hegelians were self-proclaimed Communists (which led to historical materialism, and so on).

But without this "baggage", historical materialism would not have ever existed. There is nothing about merely analyzing history which enables one to draw the conclusions that Marx and Engels did. It was precisely dealing with the pitfalls of Hegel and their own colleagues that led them to it. That doesn't mean regression into empiricism and positivism.

RedMaterialist

8th September 2015, 03:16

Understanding how it is possible that the same man which is physiologically identical in two different epochs could exist differently not only in their conditions of life and being, but in their understanding of those - is the point.

This is an impossibility. It's even impossible for the same person to exist in one epoch at two different times. Rather, the A =/=A argument (A is not equal to A.)

There is nothing about merely analyzing history which enables one to draw the conclusions that Marx and Engels did. It was precisely dealing with the pitfalls of Hegel and their own colleagues that led them to it. That doesn't mean regression into empiricism and positivism.

That would be true if Marx's analysis were only the empirical collection and systemisation of data. But it went beyond that to a dialectical analysis. "Dealing with pitfalls of Hegel and their own colleagues" is another way of saying they explained the contradictions of Hegel and the others and then dialectically showed how society develops from those contradictions.

And not only dealing with others' contradictions but with their own. Engels said that the The German Ideology was willingly left to the criticism of the mice because he and Marx had settled accounts with their own philosophical consciences, had rejected or corrected their own German philosophy inherited from Hegel.

Rafiq

8th September 2015, 03:57

This is an impossibility. It's even impossible for the same person to exist in one epoch at two different times. Rather, the A =/=A argument (A is not equal to A.)

I know your tenacity to defend yourself just for the sake of it, but please don't pretend this time you actually understand what I'm trying to say. I'm saying physiologically, humans do not change across historic epochs. Unless you're trying to argue that human physiology is a determining factor specifically in the particularities of one historic epoch to another, which is the argument of racists and reactionary philistines (but barely, even understanding such a thing as different historic periods is for them impossible) - we can discuss that in a different thread.

And obviously all I mean by "the same person" is the person who is, where it COUNTS genetically identical. If you raised a baby born in the 1200's in 2015, it is not going to exhibit behavioral tendencies that would be found in the 1200's.

Again, please do not pretend like you understood my initial point. For the sake of honesty.

That would be true if Marx's analysis were only the empirical collection and systemisation of data. But it went beyond that to a dialectical analysis.

What would be true? I agree with you (basically), but how are you responding to what I said? I said:

There is nothing about merely analyzing history which enables one to draw the conclusions that Marx and Engels did. It was precisely dealing with the pitfalls of Hegel and their own colleagues that led them to it. That doesn't mean regression into empiricism and positivism.

Obviously, in the context of the paragraph, "merely analyzing" does mean dealing with a bunch of empirical facts and data. It means in context, just looking at history at face value. I mean, I don't understand the controversy here.

"Dealing with pitfalls of Hegel and their own colleagues" is another way of saying they explained the contradictions of Hegel and the others and then dialectically showed how society develops from those contradictions.

No, it was Hegel who dealt with the "contradictions" of Kant - as was the whole German idealist tradition. Marx simply introduces the scientific element, which turns Hegel on its head. It had nothing to do with stating that... Society develops from contradictions inherent to theoretical controversies. Forgive me if that's not what you're trying to insinuate though.

And not only dealing with others' contradictions but with their own. Engels said that the The German Ideology was willingly left to the criticism of the mice because he and Marx had settled accounts with their own philosophical consciences, had rejected or corrected their own German philosophy inherited from Hegel.

It is the tradition of ruthless criticism you're referring to. Something unfortunately lacking among the complacent Left today.

Finally, you mean "had corrected" - or "had rejected in juxtaposition to their own materialism". It is ironic that one cannot even understand Marx's rejection of Hegel.. In non-dialectical terms (i.e. Marx saw through the aufhebeng of Hegel).

RedMaterialist

8th September 2015, 04:19

And obviously all I mean by "the same person" is the person who is, where it COUNTS genetically identical. If you raised a baby born in the 1200's in 2015, it is not going to exhibit behavioral tendencies that would be found in the 1200's.

Again, please do not pretend like you understood my initial point. For the sake of honesty.

Who's being dishonest? There's no such thing as two genetically identical (the same dna) people.

Marx simply introduces the scientific element, which turns Hegel on its head. It had nothing to do with stating that... Society develops from contradictions inherent to theoretical controversies. Forgive me if that's not what you're trying to insinuate though.

And that scientific element was non-mystical dialectics or dialectical materialism.

Rafiq

8th September 2015, 04:27

Who's being dishonest? There's no such thing as two genetically identical (the same dna) people.

I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I'm just you should be honest that you've missed the point entirely. People are genetically identical where it actually counts (in this context). All that means is that genetics is not going to explain feudalism to capitalism, or slave society to asiatic society - this is a variable which remains constant throughout human history, yet humans change (independent of changes in their physiology).

That is patently all I meant, and frankly, it is shameful that I have to speak more on it than what should have already been tacitly understood. So when I say "same people", I just mean that given their physiology from birth, both could have lived in each's respective epochs and occupied the same roles as each other. Please do not respond saying "Well material conditions also shape physiology to some extent" because you should know well that this makes no difference as far as the argument goes.

It literally... Literal... Is missing the point.

And that scientific element was non-mystical dialectics or dialectical materialism.

Dialectics is dialectics. The only mysticism that was abdicated was the mysticism as it pertained to an application of an analysis of history. I suppose you could argue that dialectics can only ever be its application, which happened to be scientific and not contingent upon "mysticism" (And outside of the controversy between Marx and Hegelianism, Hegel was not mystical. Or, I should say, Hegel was only just as mystical as any other idealist - including the anglo-saxon empiricists).

PhoenixAsh

8th September 2015, 05:16

Who's being dishonest? There's no such thing as two genetically identical (the same dna) people.

Technically this is incorrect.

There are 6 billion bases in the genome making up 3 billion base pairs. This means that replication of one individual occurs in (1/4) to the power of 6,000,000,000. But then again...99.9% of human DNA is more or less fixed in all individuals and it is the 0.01% that makes us different.

In that case the numbers get much, much smaller. (1/4) to the power of 6,000,000.

Either way. DNA is finite. And finite numbers will repeat themselves if the group is extended beyond the finite number.

That means it is statistically likely that at least 1 DNA repetition occurred or will occur throughout history.

PhoenixAsh

8th September 2015, 05:25

Anyhow...regardless.

If say...an exact DNA copy of you were alive in the previous epoch...even considering your identical DNA etc. you would still be a very different person because "who" you are (how you think, your behavior, your ideas, your attitudes etc) is shaped (mostly) by the material conditions and reality...and as a result the society you live in....and not "merely" by genes.

We coincidentally have a thread about Pannekoek on Bourgeois Materialism vs Historical Materialism which touches on this very subject:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pannekoek-and-middle-t194057/index.html

This article is linked in OP and touches on how ideas are formed

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htm

Asero

8th September 2015, 11:04

To simplify, Dialectical Materialism is the philosophical worldview of Marxism. It is Materialist because it views material substance and exterior reality as primary and determinant for conceptualizing ideas, contra to Idealism and 'Agnosticism'. It is Dialectical because it sees that taking appearances for granted can lead to one-sided conclusions.

Dialectical logic views everything in constant flux, and as everything being part of a singular interrelated whole. The Marxist view about how a thing is defined is by the historical development of the qualities of the thing. A thing is seen as a relation (Within society, relations are 'social relations' because of their social characteristic) whose subject matter is determined not just by its "inner" qualities, but by the way it is influenced in relation to its "surrounding" things, and to the way it-as-relation internally functions within the system it is part of taken in totality. The relation is a process, from which we abstract laws of development in the production and reproduction of the relation in its development as a process, who's function in part is defined by its integration to the system as a whole. 'Dialectical laws' are the study of these 'laws of motion'. Quantity/quality, contradiction, and the negation of the negation are just some of the more well known of these 'laws'.

The problem with dialectics is that it tends to be mystified by both 'anti-dialectical' sophists and 'dialectical wizards' alike into being more than what it is. It is a heuristic and nothing more. To quote Bertell Ollman (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch02.php), "Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in this manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically." Another problem arises is that Marx never wrote his promised treatise on his dialectical method, so Marxist dialectics tends to come from Engels, Dietzgen, interpretations of Marx (typically from Capital), or reading Marx from a 'dialectical' thinker (like Hegel, Spinoza, etc), so there isn't a singular 'orthodox' dialectical materialist system.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit intruding, but what have you read of dialectics online, and what do you know about it right now, stillwood? I find it's easier to understand a concept if you can build on what you already know, and to try to repeat what you know already in your own words.

RedMaterialist

8th September 2015, 17:30

Technically this is incorrect.

There are 6 billion bases in the genome making up 3 billion base pairs. This means that replication of one individual occurs in (1/4) to the power of 6,000,000,000. But then again...99.9% of human DNA is more or less fixed in all individuals and it is the 0.01% that makes us different.

In that case the numbers get much, much smaller. (1/4) to the power of 6,000,000.

Either way. DNA is finite. And finite numbers will repeat themselves if the group is extended beyond the finite number.

That means it is statistically likely that at least 1 DNA repetition occurred or will occur throughout history.

Since the population of the world is now close to 8 billion that would mean that it is far more likely that an exact copy, down to the last atom in the last base, of you would exist somewhere in the world.

But it's not really about being a copy of another person, it's about being a human being in a different social, economic, political, i.e. historical setting.

Hatshepsut

8th September 2015, 17:52

It is a heuristic and nothing more.

Indeed. And if dialectics is a method, then it's not a hypothesis we test.

The economic equality of labor power is a dialectic, taking two people who are obviously far from identical and asserting that in an aspect of socialized labor they are. This doesn't presume that blacks are physically or mentally similar to whites, or that two people will perform equally on the same task, even if the task is one we call "a measure of intelligence." It presumes that labor is liberated, so that the life and work of each person can be expressed in the environment most appropriate for that person.

What we see here is one class constraining the labor of the other classes. The Bell Curve is a wonderful example of such dynamics in a racial context: A controlling class, which incidentally has a preponderance of European-descended white folks, writes up an IQ test, oddly drawing on its own Anglo cultural background, administers this test to American blacks and whites, then declares the blacks genetically inferior with respect to IQ because they score lower.

Stephen Jay Gould exposed the farce in The Mismeasure of Man back in 1981, where for-profit Wechsler IQ scales have replaced skull measurements. I have no doubt that genes influence both skull shape and scores on tests, and that blacks may well score lower on Wechsler IQ partly for genetic reasons. But since IQ is contrived, the entire game becomes meaningless: There are probably mental performance tests where blacks would score higher than whites. IQ, hardly an equivalent to intellect, is a thing Arthur Jensen has reified in support of racism. Even the statistical validity of the racial findings stands questionable as score variations within the groups were always larger than differences found between them, making for low signal-to-noise ratios.

Hegel and dialectical materialism fly well over my analytically challenged head; although I thought the related Marxian philosophy was actually historical materialism, which can use either dialectical or reductionist methods as appropriate to a given situation. That one rejects the program of logical positivism needn't imply one is forbidden to use a method it has developed.

Dialectical considerations do tell me that our genes/environment dichotomy is artificial in nature. Capitalism claims to optimize the employment of people via free markets, yet such markets turn out more opaque than free. Whereupon many U.S. blacks are forced to labor in suboptimal environments because doing so advances the interest of the ruling bourgeoisie in maintaining division of the proletariat, through another artificial construct known as race.

LuÃs Henrique

8th September 2015, 18:02

(in fact, Marxism doesn't need any particular philosophical grand theory)

Indeed. And, more, it rejects all particular grand philosophical theories. It should be noticed, however, that it also rejects all philosophical theories that claim to be non-philosophical.

That is because while Marxism doesn't need any particular philosophical grand theory, it does need a particular method, which is very different and mutually exclusive regarding naïve methodologies based in contemplation of reality.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

8th September 2015, 18:13

Since the population of the world is now close to 8 billion that would mean that it is far more likely that an exact copy, down to the last atom in the last base, of you would exist somewhere in the world.

I don't think you remotely grasp the idea of 4^6,000,000. It is a number vastly superior to the total number of atoms in the observable universe (an estimative puts that at something like 10^82 atoms, which would be something less than 4^164).

There is absolutely no chance of two human individuals having the exact same DNA, except if they are identical twins.

But it's not really about being a copy of another person, it's about being a human being in a different social, economic, political, i.e. historical setting.

Yup: two identical twins, one raised in Sweden by a family in the haute-bourgeoisie, and the other raised in Afghanistan by a family of peasants, will be as different as two people can be, regardless of DNA.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

8th September 2015, 20:44

Except it is 1/4 and not 4. And it is a statistical formula. And it has very little to do with atoms.

It is not very complex though. There are four possible positions per base. Which is 6 billion. Since they are paired that means there are 3 billion possible positions. And since 99.9% of them are the same for each individual...we are left with a rather small number in comparison. But this is a highly abstract face value formula based on mathematical possibility and not on biological possibility.

The number gets significantly smaller when you take into consideration that those are all the possible variables and they are not the variables that actually matter for individual distinction on a level that actually counts within the context that we are using it. The fragmentation between a minuscule variables in how your iris looks for example have no discernible correlation with your psychological identity. And clustering of base pair repetition make the number even smaller. On that note we also have to calculate the fact that humans breed in limited variation groups. Meaning that whole communities have a very high DNA correlation match. While the possible DNA positions are fantastically large...the pool of variations we currently have is extremely more limited than it's mathematical possibility.

It might be a lame analogy. But look at it as the entire scope of the color spectrum...while there are only a handful of actual iphone colors you can purchase.

The statistical likelihood is therefor the calculated estimate of 1 in 130 billion based on non related individuals....and given that the estimate for the historic world population is 108 billion....the chance that an exact countable genome copy occurs is considerable. Especially because the number is not infinite but finite. A finite variation in a group that isn't (for all intents and purposes) finite throughout time will mean that the chance of repetition is 100%.

Where it gets more complex is on the level of epi-genetics. Which is exactly what we are talking about here. The exact DNA sequencing expresses differently in different material circumstances (even within the exact same family btw between identical twins (who also do not have identical DNA btw)).

This means that even though two individuals can have the exact same DNA. Epi-genetics creates different individuals in different material circumstances from that DNA.

In other words "who" we are is a result of the material conditions/society. How we understand our own conditions therefor becomes the result not of nature but of the material circumstances.

What Rafiq means as I understand it is that our society is not a product of nature but rather that we are a product of our society.

LuÃs Henrique

8th September 2015, 21:16

Except it is 1/4 and not 4.

Well, man, one is the inverse of the other. And so are their powers. 1/4 to the 6th millionth power is the same as one divided by 4 to the 6th millionth power.

And of course, it has to do with atoms. If the number of atoms in the observable universe is but an infinitesimal fraction of 4^6,000,000, then the number of human individuals, which is in itself a very smallish fraction of the atoms in the observable universe (each human individual is composed of about 10^27 atoms, and most atoms in the universe aren't part of human individuals), must be an even smaller fraction of 4^6,000,000.

In other words, the chance of two human beings (including all human beings that have already lived) being genetically equal is - barring identical twins - negligible. Be sure, unless you have an identical twin, or that you manage to have yourself cloned, no one else has or has had your DNA, nor is it likely that anyone will have, unless we can somehow survive, without significant mutations, the end of the universe.

... Or the successive ends of a whole series of universes, more probably.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

8th September 2015, 21:40

The statistical likelihood is therefor the calculated estimate of 1 in 130 billion based on non related individuals....and given that the estimate for the historic world population is 108 billion....the chance that an exact countable genome copy occurs is considerable. Especially because the number is not infinite but finite. A finite variation in a group that isn't (for all intents and purposes) finite throughout time will mean that the chance of repetition is 100%.

Let's understand this.

108 billion is 108 X 10^9.
Or 1.08 X 10^11.
1/4^6,000,000 is, roughly, 1/10^3,500,000.

10^11 is 1 followed by eleven zeroes.
10^3,500,000 is 1 followed by 3,500,000 zeroes.

10^11 is easy to put into ordinary notation: it is 11,000,000,000.
To put 10^3,500,000 into ordinary notation, I would have to start with a 1, and then follow it by enough zeroes to fill a book the size of the King James Version of the bible (which I am told has 3,566,480 letters).

10^3,500,000 divided by 10^11 is equal to 10^3,499,989. Or 1 followed by a King James Version Bible (minus its three or four last words) of zeroes. This is the order of your chance of having, or having had, a perfect clone of yourself in the present and the past.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 00:52

Let's understand this.

108 billion is 108 X 10^9.
Or 1.08 X 10^11.
1/4^6,000,000 is, roughly, 1/10^3,500,000.

10^11 is 1 followed by eleven zeroes.
10^3,500,000 is 1 followed by 3,500,000 zeroes.

10^11 is easy to put into ordinary notation: it is 11,000,000,000.
To put 10^3,500,000 into ordinary notation, I would have to start with a 1, and then follow it by enough zeroes to fill a book the size of the King James Version of the bible (which I am told has 3,566,480 letters).

10^3,500,000 divided by 10^11 is equal to 10^3,499,989. Or 1 followed by a King James Version Bible (minus its three or four last words) of zeroes. This is the order of your chance of having, or having had, a perfect clone of yourself in the present and the past.

Luís Henrique

Nope. What you do, as I explained above is take the mathematical formula. That is however not how it works.

What you forget to take into consideration as I explained above:

1). DNA clusters: meaning there are clusters of base pairs. Groupings which are always the same. Which highly reduces the number of changeable locations.
2). Deactivated base pairs and strands (and therefor locations). For example the DNA regulating olfactory capacity in humans is only regulated by 30% of the genes having to do with olfactory. The rest is basically useless because it has no function.
3). While you have 6 billion slots the sequencing is also depended on the genetic variation within a group. As the group expands gene variation will increase. However humans do not breed within the entire gene pool and regional genetic correlation allows for less variation than the statistical possible meaning that inter correlation between DNA in a location could be extremely high.
4). DNA that has no correlation to the context since it is entirely irrelevant if you have light blue eyes or a pixel to the left of light blue eyes. And since we are talking about attitudes and mental capacity...the set range of the possible locations is not 6 billion and not even 6 million but an extremely small number of the 0.01% that accounts for genetic variation of the entirety of the human DNA
5). Junk DNA

If you do all that the calculated estimate is that there is a 1 in 130 billion chance that there will be an exact functioning copy of your DNA of DNA that counts in a workable sense.

Meaning that mathematically you have all those possibilities. Biological you don't.

On top of that...the entire world population throughout history is somewhere along the lines of 108 billion people. This number needs to be applied to your chance calculation. It however doesn't feature when you dismiss the possibility.

OGG

9th September 2015, 01:01

It should be pointed out that DNA by itself is useless. The mechanism that truly matters is protein synthesis. The expression of genes is dependent on non-DNA coding factors. Examples include the methylation of histones, acetylation of histones, transposons, etc.

LuÃs Henrique

9th September 2015, 12:40

Nope. What you do, as I explained above is take the mathematical formula. That is however not how it works.

What you forget to take into consideration as I explained above:

1). DNA clusters: meaning there are clusters of base pairs. Groupings which are always the same. Which highly reduces the number of changeable locations.
2). Deactivated base pairs and strands (and therefor locations). For example the DNA regulating olfactory capacity in humans is only regulated by 30% of the genes having to do with olfactory. The rest is basically useless because it has no function.
3). While you have 6 billion slots the sequencing is also depended on the genetic variation within a group. As the group expands gene variation will increase. However humans do not breed within the entire gene pool and regional genetic correlation allows for less variation than the statistical possible meaning that inter correlation between DNA in a location could be extremely high.
4). DNA that has no correlation to the context since it is entirely irrelevant if you have light blue eyes or a pixel to the left of light blue eyes. And since we are talking about attitudes and mental capacity...the set range of the possible locations is not 6 billion and not even 6 million but an extremely small number of the 0.01% that accounts for genetic variation of the entirety of the human DNA
5). Junk DNA

In a previous post you had said that,

There are 6 billion bases in the genome making up 3 billion base pairs. This means that replication of one individual occurs in (1/4) to the power of 6,000,000,000. But then again...99.9% of human DNA is more or less fixed in all individuals and it is the 0.01% that makes us different.

I suppose that the 99.9% of human DNA that is not fixed accounts for your points 1, 2, 4, and 5? If so, I am already taking that in consideration, as I am working upon the idea of 6 million (6,000,000 or 6 X 10^6) base pairs, not of six billion (6,000,000,000 or 6 X 10^9).

Now, I am sure that point 3 reduces even more the number of relevant base pairs (as also the fact that some combinations of base pairs are certainly incompatible with life).

But to what extent? How many base pairs do actually count? If it is 6,000,000 (six million, 6 X 10^6), then the chance that there will be an exact functioning copy of your DNA of DNA that counts in a workable sense is much smaller than 1 in 130 billion.

If you do all that the calculated estimate is that there is a 1 in 130 billion chance that there will be an exact functioning copy of your DNA of DNA that counts in a workable sense.

I would like to see the complete calculation in this case.

On top of that...the entire world population throughout history is somewhere along the lines of 108 billion people. This number needs to be applied to your chance calculation. It however doesn't feature when you dismiss the possibility.

Yes, it does, which is the reason why I was explaining what exactly 108 billion is:

108 billion is 108 X 10^9.
Or 1.08 X 10^11.

*************************

Doing it reversely,

If we have had a total population of 108 billion humans throughout history, then the chance that two persons have had the exact same DNA is

108 billion^2 / the total number of possible, relevant, compatible with life, base pair combinations X 2.

Now, 108 billion^2 is (1.08 X 10^9)^2, which is 1.08^2 X 10^18. Or 1.1664 X 10^18.

Now, what you claim is that

1.1664 X 10^18 / the total number of possible, relevant, compatible with life, base pair combinations X 2 is equal to 1/130 billion (1.3 X 10^11).

If such is true and we call "the total number of possible, relevant, compatible with life, base pair combinations" x, then it follows:

1.1664 X 10^18 / 2x = 1/(1.3 X 10^11)

2 x = 1.664 X 10^18 X 1.3 X 10^11

2 x = 1.51632 X 10^29

x = 0.75816 X 10^29

Or, that you are estimating the total number of possible, relevant, compatible with life, base pair combinations at 0.75816 X 10^29

However, as we know, the total number of possible, relevant, compatible with life, base pair combinations, or x, is also 4^y, where y stands for the number of possible and relevant bases.

So, what you are saying is that

x = 0.75816 X 10^29 = 4^y

Which means,

4^y = 0.75816 X 10^29

and since

4^48 = 0.72282 X 10^29

for your estimation of an 1 in 130 billion chance to be correct, the relevant and possible base pairs would have to be around... 48.

And since we evidently know that there are much, much more than 48 relevant and possible base pairs, it follows that either your calculations must be mistaken somewhere (or that I am doing something wrong above).

Luís Henrique

ETA: all of that, ignoring biological sex, which reduces even more the number of possible matches (of those 108 billion people that ever existed, I, myself, being a biological male, cannot have an identical DNA to half of them, who are or were biological females).

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 12:51

In a previous post you had said that,

What I said was this: DNA is finite. And finite numbers will repeat themselves if the group is extended beyond the finite number. Statistically it is likely that repetition has or will occur.

It is not possible to say repetition is not possible. Since it is. Finite numbers will repeat themselves if they are applied to a larger finite group or infinite group. This is regardless of how huge the number is. In fact the chance of that happening is 100%.

You can't say repetition hasn't happened yet in history...since no matter how small the chance of it having happened....the chance is there and there is no absolute mathematical certainty you can counter pose to it. You can only go as far as saying that it is extremely unlikely and the chance of it having occurred is extremely small bordering on the certainty that it hasn't happened.

Stating that it can't, won't and hasn't happened is technically incorrect.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2850543&postcount=11

The mathematics are mentioned because it shows the finite number of possible DNA combinations.

To those combinations you have to keep into account that while the mathematical formula counts all positions as a possible position to be filled. This number is actually not 6 billion nor even 0.01% of 6 billion. It is rather small in comparison.

The reason for this is that:

99.9% of DNA is exactly the same.

And the remaining 0.01% is also not entirely available or relevant. Leaving us with a rather reduced number of possible locations to be filled:

I suppose that the 99.9% of human DNA that is not fixed accounts for your points 1, 2, 4, and 5? If so, I am already taking that in consideration, as I am working upon the idea of 6 million (6,000,000 or 6 X 10^6) base pairs, not of six billion (6,000,000,000 or 6 X 10^9).

See and that is what I was trying to tell you. No they are not covered.

99.9% is the same across all humans. The 0.01% is regulated in several forms:

1) switched off DNA...DNA that serves no discernable function since it is like the off button in a computer game. Two options. 1 is functional. The other isn't. Like for example the olfactory system...which consists of 30% active bases out of 100%. The remaining 70% doesn't actually work.
2) clusters of base pairs that are the same. But clusters themselves can vary.
3) junk DNA
4) unique DNA

And let's leave out the positions which are contextually not relevant....such as blue and a pixel to the left or right blue eyes.

**

Also your starting position doesn't reflect the chance of 2 in 108 billion since you multiply twice.

LuÃs Henrique

9th September 2015, 13:09

99.9% is the same across all humans. The 0.01% is regulated in several forms:

1) switched off DNA...DNA that serves no discernable function since it is like the off button in a computer game. Two options. 1 is functional. The other isn't. Like for example the olfactory system...which consists of 30% active bases out of 100%. The remaining 70% doesn't actually work.
2) clusters of base pairs that are the same. But clusters themselves can vary.
3) junk DNA
4) unique DNA

Also your starting position doesn't reflect the chance of 2 in 108 billion.

Mkay.

As per my previous post, if the relevant DNA is limited to 48 base pairs, then there is a 1/130 billion chance that there have ever been two different human individuals (who are not identical twins) with the exact same relevant DNA. If the number of relevant base pairs is more than 48, then divide the chance by 4 for each additional relevant base pair (ie, if there are 49 relevant base pairs, then it is 1/520 billions).

I very much doubt that the number of relevant base pairs is so low as 1 or 2 per chromosome.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 13:46

Fair enough. I have no idea how that calculation was calculated. It is just the calculation given. Whether they use clusters or deviation standards...no idea.

Point is. There is no absolute with finite numbers. You can't say it is impossible...hasn't happened or won't happen.

Look at it like this. The chance you have your DNA make up is exactly the same chance. That chance was infinitely small on paper. Yet it occurred. Why?

LuÃs Henrique

9th September 2015, 14:19

Fair enough. I have no idea how that calculation was calculated. It is just the calculation given. Whether they use clusters or deviation standards...no idea.

Well, you could give us the source.

Point is. There is no absolute with finite numbers. You can't say it is impossible...hasn't happened or won't happen.

It isn't "impossible". It just so improbable that you can bet your life against it, and be sure you are safe.

(But if you add mutations to the equation, then it is practically impossible. Of those 108 billion people who have existed in present or past, a huge chunk would not have genes for white or black skin, because those mutations are relatively recent.)

Look at it like this. The chance you have your DNA make up is exactly the same chance. That chance was infinitely small on paper. Yet it occurred. Why?

Just as the chance that this one die will turn up any given number between one and six is just one in six... but then when it is thrown, it will necessarily turn up one, and only one, of the possible results. Even though there was a 5/6 chance that it would have turned up a different number.

The latest time the Brazilian lottery called Mega Sena run, the results were

09 10 17 32 34 46

There was one chance in 50,063,860 of this happening, and yet it happened. But we are talking about things happening twice; the chance of that same combination of numbers being the result of the next run are again one in 50,063,860 - and I would gladly bet against the possibility. The chances of that happening again within one year are somewhat bigger, but still quite smallish. The chance of that happening again in the future depends, of course, of the - for the moment unknowable - time this lottery will be running. If it runs for a million years to come (which means 52 million weeks, and consequently 52 million lottery runs), than it is absolutely certain that some results will get repeated (though not necessarily this one). But that depends, of course, of the possibility of capitalism enduring a million years to come, and so it is most likely not going to happen.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 14:40

Coincidentally. ...

The exact same lottery number appearing twice occurred at least 6 times in the history of lotteries. And those are just the links I could find.

Here are two. One in Bulgaria with the same numbe occuring a few months later and the second one...The exact same person with the exact same number.

http://io9.com/why-the-exact-same-lottery-numbers-came-up-twice-in-one-1515565938

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142457/Five-trillion-Punter-scoops-second-lottery-win-numbers-By-David-Wilkes.html

It is like Prattchet wrote...1 in a million chances have a tendency to pop up 9 out of 10 times. ;)

All joking aside.

The first link actually explains the chance of any combination popping up vs the exact same combination.

This means that the chance to rolling two 6-es on a 6 sided die is different from the chance to roll a six on each roll.

This means that if you are in a casino and you bet on black (roulette) the chance that it will hit red on the next turn theoretically increases each round IF you approach it in a sequential manner. Yet the chance of hitting either color on the next role is 47.3% (out of the top of my head....since there I 1 green square....and depending if you play American or European roulette).

LuÃs Henrique

9th September 2015, 15:17

depending if you play American or European roulette).

As long as no one is playing the Russian roulette...

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 15:24

But back to the point at hand. If you study identical twins the the difference between them in the DNA is in the epigenes. These are factored because of the environment in which an individual lives. The external influences if you will. This is measured (fyi) by boiling DNA and adding hydrogen and measuring absorption rate.

Extrapolating from that. The difference between individuals is not genetic but environmental.

Apply this to historical materialism.

IF an exact same DNA copy exist across epochs...The expression of those individuals would be very different because of the environmental factors. One such factor is society and the ruling ideology.

Now I know from previous discussions with Rafiq that he is a strong adherent to the idea that people are the product of society and their behavior as well as cogniton is regulated from that context (personally I agree to a point...and
disagree that this is the only factor). But what I agree on is that if I were to live two epochs ago I would be very much a different individual as well as having a completely different understanding of my specific circumstances. Rafiq continues that genes do not explain the system and ideology of the epoch. He juxtaposes this against bourgeois materialism which states that society is a result of natural inclined human behavior.

Or as Marx explained it:

With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

PhoenixAsh

9th September 2015, 15:27

As long as no one is playing the Russian roulette...

Luís Henrique

meh...depends on of you spin or don't spin ;)

Guardia Rossa

9th September 2015, 18:21

Jesus Marx, I hope we don't get a discussion like this to prove every little example we give...

BorisBandit

9th September 2015, 21:14

This is an impossibility. It's even impossible for the same person to exist in one epoch at two different times. Rather, the A =/=A argument (A is not equal to A.)

There is one way a person can exist in two epochs at the same time. At the transition between one & the other. For example the transition between the Antebellum era & the Civil War, & then the consequent, Reconstruction.

LuÃs Henrique

10th September 2015, 00:07

Jesus Marx, I hope we don't get a discussion like this to prove every little example we give...

Welcome to revleft, where nothing ever gets done, but everything is discussed down to the very bottom.

Luís Henrique

RedMaterialist

10th September 2015, 01:15

possible/impossible .. pre Hegelian opposites, pre dialectical analysis. nothing is either possible or impossible, but only moving between the two.

Hatshepsut

10th September 2015, 04:35

Odd. Bourgeois materialism wants genetic determinism while Marxism wants environmental determinism. It’s an endless argument over a false dichotomy, since genes & environment always operate together. Much about human beings, including social behavior, occurs under strong genetic influences. Yet genes certainly don’t determine capitalism and historical development, which are regulated by the social environment. Though a gene, FOXP2, may be responsible for the human ability to talk, Marx was concerned only with the history.

It should be noticed, however, that [Marxism] also rejects all philosophical theories that claim to be non-philosophical.

Any examples of such a theory? I'm just curious. I can't think of any examples.

PhoenixAsh

10th September 2015, 13:01

Any examples of such a theory? I'm just curious. I can't think of any examples.

The one thing that springs to mind is the philosophy of differences by Larualle.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25437-philosophies-of-difference-a-critical-introduction-to-non-philosophy/

LuÃs Henrique

10th September 2015, 13:31

Odd. Bourgeois materialism wants genetic determinism while Marxism wants environmental determinism.

I don't think that Marxists "want" environmental determinism. But I have seen, or rather read (not here in revleft, but in the Philosophy Forum), people attributing the clicks in some African languages to... genes (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=50268&findpost=892868#post892868).

At that point, not only Marxists, but anyone with a small amount of sences, should react and state that no, there isn't a gene for clicks in language.

Any examples of such a theory? I'm just curious. I can't think of any examples.

It is generally called positivism (http://www.britannica.com/topic/positivism); the idea that mere contemplation of reality is the main source of knowledge, and that somehow we are able to put ourselves in a purely contemplative mood, exempt of ideology and metaphysics.

Luís Henrique

Alet

10th September 2015, 15:38

Though a gene, FOXP2, may be responsible for the human ability to talk, Marx was concerned only with the history.

The mere ability to talk does not say anything about the development of language. Of course, humans have to be able to communicate in order to... well, communicate, and that's exactly why this statement is tautological. Being able to do something does not already make someone start doing it, that's where environmental impact takes part and that's why Marx was right in the end.

RedMaterialist

10th September 2015, 17:25

There is one way a person can exist in two epochs at the same time. At the transition between one & the other. For example the transition between the Antebellum era & the Civil War, & then the consequent, Reconstruction.

Can you really say you are the same person you were yesterday?

Hit The North

10th September 2015, 17:37

Can you really say you are the same person you were yesterday?

Depends what you mean by "person".

Hatshepsut

10th September 2015, 19:02

Other animals can communicate, but they can’t talk. Genes are already known to evolve in response to social pressure given the existence of sexual selection in nature. This isn’t too significant for history because the time frame, 5000 years or so, is short. It may matter for speech which has a long prehistoric developmental period. FOXP2 was originally studied in a British family where a dominant mutation impairs the ability of half this family’s members to speak, and affects some aspects of nonverbal reasoning as well. A summary with more specific information about the only two families which have been studied is at:

Tomblin et al, 2009. Language features in a mother and daughter...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760059/

The issue wouldn’t matter to me much except for the episodes Soviet agronomy had with Trofim Lysenko. Attempts to force plant science into a dialectical mode of one’s choosing lead to disaster. I suspect an analogous doctrine in language and speech studies would impede efforts to find effective treatments for language disorders—which may involve gene therapies at some point.

I don't think that Marxists "want" environmental determinism...[And] no, there isn't a gene for clicks in language.

Indeed, at least for Marx himself. Marx showed that means of economic production are the major determinant of historical development and the class system; social-historical factors having little to do with strict notions of determinism in biology whether heredity or environment. Nature-nurture debates heated up after Marx’s day. Some of Marx’s modern followers do seem to favor environmental determinism, however, because racists are arguing the other side.

On Philosophy Forum where you’ve linked, there’s obviously a racist, gentle but thoroughly paternalistic-colonial, on the horn. This fella enters with, “I see it more as a tragic reality that there are some races of people who seem unable to function and survive in the modern world climate. We know that some of these people have an unusual genetic history...that isolation and inbreeding are contributing to genetic deterioration.”

An introductory linguistics textbook will explain that the clicks are phonemes, like /p/ or /sh/ in English. Any baby, of any race, who hears a click language in the home will grow up speaking it. If Papuans (who don’t use a click language) aren’t learning about the modern world, then no one is teaching them. The hundreds of languages studied to date all carry similar expressive power and grammatical complexity: The lexicon is what expands when civilizations invent more words to deal with new knowledge, as in your example of finger words employed to represent numbers.

People certainly imprint on language just like ducklings imprint on their mothers. Studies to determine whether genetics of language acquisition are identical in all human populations have never been done up to now as far as I know; these might be interesting. FOXP2 has only one normal allele worldwide, I think, although this gene is a regulator for other genes which are polymorphic.

LuÃs Henrique

10th September 2015, 19:07

Can you really say you are the same person you were yesterday?

Yes.

Like this:

I am the same person I was yesterday.

OK, I wrote it, not said it. But then I said it aloud while writing it, too. Do you need the audio? :D

What you want to know is whether this is true. It is, because there is certainly a continuity between myself yesterday and myself today; and it isn't, because I am certainly different today than I was yesterday.

Of course, there is a kind of solipsist that would claim that we can't know whether we were created today, with fake memories of a fake past implanted into our brains. To those people, I would ask that they put all of their money into my bank account, and, if they refuse, I will confirm that they don't believe their "philosophy".

Luís Henrique

BorisBandit

10th September 2015, 20:00

Can you really say you are the same person you were yesterday?

Yes & no. You're part of the same ongoing process that involves an ongoing person-hood. You're not exactly the same from yesterday being part of that ongoing process because process is change.

Spectre of Spartacism

10th September 2015, 20:39

I would caution anyone against relying uncritically on the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but they do have a good summary of what dialectical materialism is.

According to them, dialectical materialism is

a scientific world view (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/World_view); a universal method of cognition of the world; the science (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Science) of the most general laws (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Law) of the movement and development of nature (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nature), society (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Society), and consciousness (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Consciousness). Dialectical materialism is based on the achievements of modern science and advanced social practice; it is constantly developed and enriched as they progress. It constitutes the general theoretical foundation of Marxist-Leninist teaching. Marxist philosophy is materialistic (http://greatsovietencyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Materialism), since it proceeds from the recognition of matter as the sole basis of the world; it views consciousness as the attribute of a highly organized, social form of matter’s motion, a function of the brain, the reflection of the objective world. It is called dialectical because it recognizes the universal interrelationship between objects and phenomena and stresses the importance of motion and development in the world as the result of the internal contradictions operating in the world itself. Dialectical materialism is the highest form of modern materialism and the sum total of the entire preceding history of the development of philosophical thought.

Tim Redd

11th September 2015, 02:54

Hello Im having a hard time fully understanding dialectical materialism. Ive read a lot of explanations online, and even watched some videos...

Where did you find the videos? Thanks.

Hatshepsut

11th September 2015, 03:43

I've found the Great Soviet Encyclopedia most informative although it can omit significant information, such as the fact that Marx never used the term "dialectical materialism." The 1979 edition also leaves out Stalin's name. But the first sentence in their definition for it says it's a theory of cognition, not necessarily of reality itself, best used in the analysis of actual situations, preferably social or historical, instead of for mere thought experiments:

In Lenin’s doctrine of truth, the problem of the concrete nature of truth is central: “that which constitutes the very gist, the living soul of Marxism—a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.”

- http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Dialectical+Materialism

Tim Redd

18th September 2015, 03:04

I've found the Great Soviet Encyclopedia most informative although it can omit significant information, such as the fact that Marx never used the term "dialectical materialism.However in works like German Ideology Marx does write that he loves the materialist view and on the other he loves the dialectical view stood on its head to be on an a materialist basis, unlike Hegel's dialectics which are idealist. In an objective philosophical analysis the 2 views Marx held should be combined, so the claptrap about him never having an inkling of anything like a merged ideology of dialectics and materialism is nonsense.

Wishful idealism would be another name for claptrap that denies that Marx had a philosophical standpoint that was centered upon the 2 focal points of materialism and dialectics - a materialist dialectical, or dialectical materialist viewpoint.

Brandon's Impotent Rage

18th September 2015, 05:31

BorisBandit

18th September 2015, 12:56

Hatshepsut

I've found the Great Soviet Encyclopedia most informative although it can omit significant information, such as the fact that Marx never used the term "dialectical materialism."

He signifies dialectical materialism in the following:
"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

(Afterword of 2nd German Edition, Capital, Vol one.)

Tim Redd

21st September 2015, 04:32

Everyone else has already explained Dialectical Materialism better than I could. I would only add this:

DM is a fantastic way of looking at the world, but it should never be used to simply end a discussion. Don't attempt to use it on a problem where the solution is staring you dead in the face.

In line with the spirit above, but not the same literally is that while the principles of DM can be an aid to proving the truth about an assertion (hypothesis) it is not ordinarily the main pillar for proving the assertion. The main pillar for understanding and proving a truth are done by analyzing the concrete, including contextual, facts of the case.

The general nature of DM asserts itself in the aspects of the case so one must be aware of and take into account the general principles of DM as one analyzes the concrete, including contextual, facts of the case

Tim Redd

21st September 2015, 11:03

Everyone else has already explained Dialectical Materialism better than I could. I would only add this:

DM is a fantastic way of looking at the world, but it should never be used to simply end a discussion. Don't attempt to use it on a problem where the solution is staring you dead in the face.

In line with the spirit above, but not the same literally is that while the principles of DM can be an aid to proving the truth about an assertion (hypothesis) it is not ordinarily the main pillar for proving the assertion. The main pillar for understanding and proving a truth are done by analyzing the concrete facts of the case in light of the background of the principles of DM. Or rather than dialectical materialism (DM) better to grasp the concept of dynamic materialism.

The term Dynamic materialism conveys the understanding that the dynamics of the motion of matter is wider than just the dynamics of the motion of matter given by dialectics. For details of this assertion please see the paper "Forward with Revolutionary Dialectics" at: http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm

RedMaterialist

22nd September 2015, 22:55

How does dialectical materialism explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Einstein's spooky action (entanglement) at a distance?

Tim Redd

23rd September 2015, 04:22

How does dialectical materialism explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Einstein's spooky action (entanglement) at a distance?

DM doesn't so much as explain either one. Rather those 2 phenomena explain DM. Nevertheless the principles of dynamics (of which dialectics is one example) do in fact underlie the 2 phenomena.

I can't explain exactly how the general - general laws of dynamics - underlie the 2 phenomena, but I can see that is true in the way that anything that happens in the operation of the 2 phenomena has an echo in dialectics and other types of dynamics such as polymorphic substitution, fractal influence, the occurrence and effect of emergence, etc.

Tim Redd

2nd October 2015, 03:37

How does dialectical materialism explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Einstein's spooky action (entanglement) at a distance?

Well the phenomena itself is a binary dialectic - you can precisely know one of a particle's parameter (e.g. velocity) but not it's complementary parameter (e.g. position).

Comrade Jacob

18th October 2015, 21:55

Tim Redd

25th October 2015, 02:44

I have still yet to read much on dialectical-materialism but my understanding of the basics is society and human nature is based on the material condition of the society. There is far more too it but I don't really know that much or how to explain the part I do.

Dialectical materialism can be best understood by breaking apart the two terms - dialectical on one hand and materialism on the other,

Materialism means that ideas and thought are primarily, or ultimately determined by being, practice and experience. Being, practice and experience are not mainly determined by ideas and thoughts, but rather vice versa. Ancillary to that for materialism, the notion of gods and spirits arise from being, practice and experience as opposed to being, practice and experience arising from gods and spirits.

Let's note that gods and spirits can not be shown to exist in space-time. Only things that can be shown to exist in space-time exist objectively. Thus materialism implies that things that really exist, exist in space-time.

Dialectics specifies a way that matter moves, or matter whose movement results in the state of a thing whose characteristic nature is dialectical. A thing that has a nature whose characteristic is dialectical exists when for example the motion of a thing results in a state of the thing that is set of interacting and or opposite factors. The factors in the resulting entity may be sets of binary or multiple interacting factors and or opposites. See Engel's "Dialectics of Nature" and Mao's "On Contradiction" for more details on the nature and operation of dialectics.

It should be noted that dialectical motion is only one of many other ways that entities and the elements of entities move and interact. There are a many other ways that entities and the elements of entities move and interact. Some Marxists including Engels, Mao and Lenin fail to realize this fact. Please see the paper Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) for ideas and arguments that make the case and explain in detail how there are a many other ways that entities and the elements of entities move and interact.

BIXX

25th October 2015, 02:52

Tim Redd

25th October 2015, 03:14

Can't we all agree that dialectical materialism really doesn't matter? It's not gonna help destroy capitalism, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't give a plan of action. That's far more interesting to me than anything DL could give.

I think that dialectics and other forms of dynamical analysis as outlined in for example Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) can often give us an improved understanding of various affairs and how to effectively manage and take advantage of those affairs to most quickly realize revolutionary goals with the least negative feedback.

Strannik

25th October 2015, 12:04

I have developed following understanding over the years. I'd say that "dialectic" is the axiom, that conceptual elements we use to construct the models of world are never sufficient. All abstractions are necessarily temporary in relation to objective living reality. This reality is what "materialist" part refers to.

Therefore dialectical materialism postulates existence of 1) objective Nature and 2) our interpretation of it, and maintains that interpretation is necessarily insufficient and must be constantly evolving in order to stay in congruence with Nature. This is actually well in accordance with modern information theory.

It seems to me that there are two ways to misuse the axiom of Dialectic. One is to believe that evolution of abstractions follows it's inherent logic towards more perfect abstractions and will at one point result in Absolute Truth. This is the "Hegelian fallacy". When separated from active engagement with Nature, abstractions evolve into perverted forms which may be logically sound, but lack any relation to objective Nature. Naturally there is no contradiction between formal logic and dialectical materialism - dialectical materialism just claims that logical constructs when applied in practice are necessarily insufficient and temporary. "A does not equal A" means that a representation is never equal to object itself. An attempt to replace formal logic with "dialectical" is a result of Hegelian fallacy and leads to mystic belief that we can reach "better abstractions" through negotiations and debate alone.

Another way to misuse dialectical materialism is to believe that changes in Nature determine the evolution of abstract models and therefore changes in thought necessarily reflects the changes in Nature. I'd call this the "Engels fallacy", for it seems to me, that in Dialectic of Nature he assumes this. In essence this outlook expects that since Nature is primary to Thought, changes in Thought must reflects laws of Nature - but then we are back in idealism, for we try to predict changes in Nature from changes in our understanding of Nature. This is actually in conflict with primacy of Nature over Thought.