Anti-Materialism

[Spirit_Warrior]

Please explain why none of this would stand up in a court of law if it were somehow "pertinent" as evidence. If it is so prevalent and obvious, then why is it not more generally accepted? Why can't it be stated as "fact" and that be the end of it? It is all too easy to understand why that is the case - and no, it isn't because "everybody is so closed minded [insert whine here]."

I love how you keep vindicating everything I charge materialism with. I told you have have no consistent standard of truth. If you ask for a logical argument to prove the soul exists. We give you one, but then you say it is not enough, you want scientific evidence. Then we give you that. And now say you want it confirmed in a court of law LOL Since, when are scientists suppose to prove their research in a court of law?

Ian Stevenson was a scientist, a psychiatrist to be exact, trained in medicine, biochemistry and of course psychiatry. He was the head of the psychiatry department of Virgina University School of medicine for 50 years. He published over 300 papers. Hence, this is not a man you can dismiss as somebody who does know science or the scientific method. In fact he was an extremely methodical and professional scientist who use actual accepted scientific research methods to study phenomena. Now, it just happens to be, that phenomena is considered "paranormal" so materialists who seem to think they have a monopoly on science, think it is pseudoscience, even though it is using exactly the same standard that is used in every other science and submitted for peer review by other scientists and published:

The Journal of the American Medical Association referred to Stevenson’s Cases of the Reincarnation Type (1975) a "painstaking and unemotional" collection of cases that were "difficult to explain on any assumption other than reincarnation."[26] In September 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Stevenson's research.[27] Writing in the journal, the psychiatrist Harold Lief described Stevenson as a methodical investigator and added, "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known (I have said as much to him) as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'."[28] The issue proved popular: the journal's editor, the psychiatrist Eugene Brody, said he had received 300–400 requests for reprints.[26]​

Of course, as usual, he had his detractors as well, which again as usual were just adhominem attacks:

Despite this early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work. According to his New York Times obituary, his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition."[7] Critics suggested that the children or their parents had deceived him, that he was too willing to believe them, and that he had asked them leading questions. In addition, critics said, the results were subject to confirmation bias, in that cases not supportive of the hypothesis were not presented as counting against it.[8] Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion, told The New York Times that Stevenson did not follow proper standards. "but you do have to look carefully to see it; that's why he's been very persuasive to many people."[7]

​

The typical response from materialists and skeptics to any researcher that studies the paranormal. "He is a charlatan, he is gullible, he is being deceived, he does not know how to do proper science, confirmation bias" or just plain strawmans. However, not all materialists and skeptics are dishonest, such as this guy here:

In an article published on Scientific American's website in 2013, favorably reviewing Stevenson's work, Jesse Bering, a professor of science communication, wrote, "Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' ”[51]​

Link to above article: Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

If you’re anything like me, with eyes that roll over to the back of your head whenever you hear words like “reincarnation” or “parapsychology,” if you suffer great paroxysms of despair for human intelligence whenever you catch a glimpse of that dandelion-colored cover of Heaven Is For Real or other such books, and become angry when hearing about an overly Botoxed charlatan telling a poor grieving mother how her daughter’s spirit is standing behind her, then keep reading, because you’re precisely the type of person who should be aware of the late Professor Ian Stevenson’s research on children’s memories of previous lives.​

The great astronomer and skeptic Carl Sagan did not ignore his research either:

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

Ian Stevenson; Sought To Document Memories Of Past Lives in Children​

Hence, it not entirely true that materialists do not all have a consistent standard of truth, the genuine and sincere scientists among them do, it is just the vast majority of them have no consistent standard of truth. The evidence against materialism is overwhelming. There is more than 100 years of a body of scientific literature that has already proven materialism wrong. Studies in ESP, NDE, OBE, Reincarnation all show positive and hard evidence that materialism is a false worldview. Those who continue to hold onto it, are like believers of any religion. It is only their faith that makes believe ridiculous things like matter coming to life, in very much the same way another religion believes one day all skeletons will come back to life -- we should be consistent, if the latter is ridiculous, so is the materialist real life Pinocchio

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Brahman is everything, so that alone is insufficient. When science talks about consciousness it talks about the properties of mind that exist in minds of humans and animals and not rocks and sun or galaxies. That and only that. Therefore it is a complete mistrannslation to call the scientific description of consciousness with the atman. Scientific consciousness is the knowing, the perceiving, the feeling and the phenomenology thereof...whereas atman is that which feels, knows, perceives and exists. They are different. Error1 is saying this subject does not exist, error2 is conflating this subject of conscious experience with consciousness.

Nothing you said there really made any sense. I think you are just multiplying words. You say there is a Self, consciousness, scientific consciousness and then mix in a few Sanskrit terms Atman and Brahman. Clear up your words, and you will clear your understanding.

Neuroscience only deals with the brain and I will get back to you on that video show all the errors he is making. For now, I will point you to a philosophical argument by Betrand russel, the argument for other minds. You know you have a mind because of introspection, that is you experience it. How do you know that anybody else has a mind? An animal or humans or even rocks? Well you don't know actually for certain, because you can't experience their mind. Rather, you infer they have a mind because they seem to behave like they have a mind. However, how do you know they are not just robots, philosophical zombies, holograms, dream characters, or projections? Simple, you don't. You just assume there are more minds.

Now, lets apply this argument to the current situation. A neuroscientist NEVER studies consciousness, because it not an object that you can dissect and analyse. A scientist studies brains and bodies never consciousness. This is why I find it funny how you are referring it to as "science of consciousness" I also know why you have latched onto it, because the Upanishads also talk about "science of consciousness" and you seem to believe they are talking about the same thing that neuroscientists are. Just like you think "72,000 nadis" are veins and arteries. You are seeking validation of your faith through modern science.

No, they are not the same thing at all, and if you did not read the Upanishads or other Hindu scriptures selectively, you would know very clearly science of consciousness refers to the science of introspection i.e. meditation. That is because the only of knowing consciousness, as Russel and phenomenologists like Husserl would agree, is through introspection. Meditation is a science the Rishis developed, and later systematised by Patanjali, to study consciousness by using a systematic method of introspection. Hence, why meditation produces predictable results --- we can map the stages you go through -- we can correlate them to breathing cycles, EEG brain wave states and neurochemistry. This IS the science of consciousness, not what materialists practice.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who said anything about God?

Alright, I'll bite - what DO you think imbued the human form with consciousness?

Again, who said anything about God? Why do you automatically assume a non-materialist would be a theist?

The original question wasn't about God anyway - I like how you ignored the real meat of the question just to wory about what I thought you believed about "God". The question was "who is the authority to determine what is the best charge to take up?"

If we had a society where everybody was their own police, judge, jury arbiter, they get to decide the law, whether they broke the law or not, and what punishment they get. Very rarely will you meet you somebody who is wrong, even the worst of criminals don't think they are wrong.

So your assumption is that in a materialist society, everyone would accept everyone else's view that they are right? Basically - you think that in a society full of materialist individuals, NO ONE would ever think anyone else's action was wrong? Seriously? In other words... you saw a window, and you figured you'd just throw your credibility out of it... does that about sum up the situation here?

Being ugly means you get treated differently in society. I selected "ugly" to mark another inequality. It is a fact ugly people get less attention, less sex, and less salary on average. It is proven in several studies.

Studies done on a bunch of people stuck in the machine. Do you think of "ugliness" as an objective truth? You seem to. And you would get that from where if not instinctual and societal influence? Nature and nurture. With your insistence on this point you prove yourself unable to rise above the directives fed to and bred within you.

Assumption 1: How the hell did lifeless matter come alive

My belief (admittedly all it is) is that life is imminent - meaning when the conditions are right, and given time for the perfect mixtures to coalesce, life will arise. Matter is already seen to be active in seeking more stable, or advantageous conditions for itself without consciousness even in the picture. I believe the arising of life to be a fundamental law of the universe.

Assumption 2: If it did come alive, why did it want to survive?

Why do atoms "want" stable configurations within molecules? If anything was able to come to a state of life, it happened out of innate forces pushing it there. Why wouldn't the matter involved remain in a state of sustaining that stable relationship? Even moving and seeking more stable relationships, e.g. evolving.

Assumption 3: Why does it have a priori knowledge?

Instinct is REAL, and it is the matter of the brain infused with pre-defined patterns of behavior and understanding. Beings come pre-programmed - it is fact, it is apparent, and it happens all the time. To me, this only means that genetic encoding of information is all the more incredibly protean and powerful.

If you questioned your assumptions you would stop being a materialist.

If I am a materialist in the first place. Regardless... I have an "answer" for everything, just as well as you do. You have nothing I can't counter. Probably the same for you. The only thing is, I will never call on a supernatural force to explain anything.

I am glad you mention these yourself Good questions how does a spider know how to weave a web, a beaver to build a dam? DNA? DNA only contains chemical codes that decide the biological composition of the body. It does not NOT, and I repeat it does NOT contain thoughts and ideas. This is another thing a materialist fails to explain and cant explain. Your worldview has no explanatory power. A dualist can explain it though, by positing there is another substance or mind which carries previous experience over.

Don't go adding your smug little emojis yet... as I stated already, I have a counter for anything you've got. This is no different. Just as you stated, DNA contains instruction for physical make-up. However, you're forgetting that,as I mentioned previously, PHYSICAL CHANGE takes place in the brain in order to account for the accrual of new memories and experience. Why couldn't the physical make-up of the brain be coded in the DNA to contain pre-determined patterns of matter that act as KNOWLEDGE - that substitute for EXPERIENCE? In fact, I believe they can and do. The spider's brain is crafted with the "neural pathways" that define its inborn knowledge. And it can use that "knowledge" from birth... just as if it had learned it, but without having to take the time. There... taken care of. And I didn't even need to use an emoji.

Oh, and for the record of course I think animals have souls. You keep imputing things to me I've not said.

But wait... aren't animals savages? Only in anything for themselves? Ruthless? Selfish? I think that's the gist of what you actually have said. I only inferred from your apparent disdain of the "animal" condition that you probably figured they didn't have souls. My mistake.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sometimes that leading in the opposite direction is a necessary self-correction.

Unless you are advancing further ahead from where you actually ready to. Pushing ahead to Enlightenment when you've got a basement full of rotting garbage is not correcting what needs to be in order for the path to bring you truly Home. Sometimes you have to go down into the basement and do your work there. There is an important analogy there that applies to this whole conversation.

They are not silly at all. I wouldn't make a point of bring them up if it didn't have value to the discussion. Let me ask you this. Do you ever say to a 10 year old, "I'm better than you because I'm 20"? No? Why not?

I am responding to all these points together to basically cut this bit of the discussion loose. Your argument basically goes like this --- be nice to the materialists, yeah they are wrong, but it a part of their natural intellectual development, after all you too were once a materialist. Actually, if I was a materialist, I would actually find this argument extremely patronising. It's just not a good argument. You could say the same to an ex-criminal who is now a cop: be nice to criminals, because it is a part of their natural development, after all you too were an ex criminal.

I am not denying materialism is better than superstition and just blind faith, although to be honest it suffers from very much the same problems as they do. Yes, It is because of the enlightenment or the age of reason that science was set free from the controls of religion(well at least in the West) and it is true that in the beginning a lot of this was driven by methodological materialism, that is studying matter, the world of things dispassionately and we progressed like weve never progressed before. However, this lead to an unfortunate consequence, and that was the rise and rise of philosophical materialism as a dominant worldview that hijacked science. Now, science has to be set free again, and this time from the materialist religion, so we can make even more progress.

 

[sayak83]

Nothing you said there really made any sense. I think you are just multiplying words. You say there is a Self, consciousness, scientific consciousness and then mix in a few Sanskrit terms Atman and Brahman. Clear up your words, and you will clear your understanding.

Neuroscience only deals with the brain and I will get back to you on that video show all the errors he is making. For now, I will point you to a philosophical argument by Betrand russel, the argument for other minds. You know you have a mind because of introspection, that is you experience it. How do you know that anybody else has a mind? An animal or humans or even rocks? Well you don't know actually for certain, because you can't experience their mind. Rather, you infer they have a mind because they seem to behave like they have a mind. However, how do you know they are not just robots, philosophical zombies, holograms, dream characters, or projections? Simple, you don't. You just assume there are more minds.

Now, lets apply this argument to the current situation. A neuroscientist NEVER studies consciousness, because it not an object that you can dissect and analyse. A scientist studies brains and bodies never consciousness. This is why I find it funny how you are referring it to as "science of consciousness" I also know why you have latched onto it, because the Upanishads also talk about "science of consciousness" and you seem to believe they are talking about the same thing that neuroscientists are. Just like you think "72,000 nadis" are veins and arteries. You are seeking validation of your faith through modern science.

No, they are not the same thing at all, and if you did not read the Upanishads or other Hindu scriptures selectively, you would know very clearly science of consciousness refers to the science of introspection i.e. meditation. That is because the only of knowing consciousness, as Russel and phenomenologists like Husserl would agree, is through introspection. Meditation is a science the Rishis developed, and later systematised by Patanjali, to study consciousness by using a systematic method of introspection. Hence, why meditation produces predictable results --- we can map the stages you go through -- we can correlate them to breathing cycles, EEG brain wave states and neurochemistry. This IS the science of consciousness, not what materialists practice.

Actually no. Upanisads are talking about Atman which is NOT consciousness. Philosophical zombies are useless fictions created by incompetent philosophers. There is no justification for separating the externally observable features of conscious perception with its internal phenomenology. If a fish veers away from a shark, it's consciously perceiving the shark. Etc. Especially now when brain scans can recreate the images a person is internally perceiving (through imagination) with very good accuracy and consciousness of multiple animals can be merged together through direct brain to brain linkages.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Actually no. Upanisads are talking about Atman which is NOT consciousness.

Sure, in your solipsistic universe. Not in any single school or tradition of Vedanta. The very word "atman" mean soul.
If you are so confident that the Upanishads are preaching materialism, then go ahead and start a materialist school of interpretation by giving a materialist interpretation of the 13 principal Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita.
Until you do that, nobody is going to take any of your armchair scholar interpretations seriously.

Philosophical zombies are useless fictions created by incompetent philosophers.

Lol, an arrogant thing to say, but nothing you say surprises me now. P-Zombies presents a philosophical problem of having just bodies with no minds, if the body was just a machine, how would the body behave if was just a machine.

There is no justification for separating the externally observable features of conscious perception with its internal phenomenology.

Yes there is. What you are arguing is type type identity theory which is obsolete in Philosophy of Mind. Type type identity theory basically said that the external observable features are the same as conscious experience e.g. brains synapses fires in a certain way is the same thing as feeling a pain. Nope, it is not the same thing, because in logic two things are identical only if they are exactly the same this is known as the principle of indiscernability of identicals And obviously "feeling a pain" is not the same thing as "brains firing synpasis" or "happiness" is not the same thing as a chemical reaction. Therefore, type-type identity theory failed. It is now the current view in Philosophy of Mind that there is at least a property dualism between conscious experiences or qualia and material processes. Hence, why we call them now "neural correlates" Correlations is not the same thing as causation.

We know that the brain lights up when we think or feel something, that is a "neural correlate" It does not mean the brain is producing the thoughts or the feelings, because the thinke could be outside of it. Plenty of examples to drive the point. If I see a car but not its driver, and I see the car lights go on and off, the engine get louder and quieter, and it change directions, I do not infer that it is the engine causing everything to happen. The outer behaviour of cars are just correlates to the driver inside.

Here is a closer example. In a computer remotely controlled, if I examine the hardware of it, I find the current goes from high to low across the motherboard. I see different areas of the motherboard light up. I do not infer that the computer is generating all of this. These are just correlates to the controller.

If a fish veers away from a shark, it's consciously perceiving the shark. Etc. Especially now when brain scans can recreate the images a person is internally perceiving (through imagination) with very good accuracy

Err no. What brains scans do is identify certain neural correlates that the subject associates with certain images like say "apple" and when that neural correlate is activated it is able to show they are thinking of an apple. It does not literally read their mind. Rather it decodes neural correlates.

I think you need to read basic a introduction guide to Philosophy of Mind.

 

[Windwalker]

Your argument basically goes like this --- be nice to the materialists, yeah they are wrong, but it a part of their natural intellectual development, after all you too were once a materialist.

Personally, I see it as more of a spiritual development, not an intellectual one ultimately. Allowing your mind to flourish in exploring aspects of truth and reality allows the spirit to imagine and reach for the stars. There are many fictions we look to for this to facilitate this, including materialism.

Actually, if I was a materialist, I would actually find this argument extremely patronising.

That's too bad. I'm actually saying it has merit and value, even though it is partial truth. On the other hand, you're demonizing it calling it an evil and blaming all the world's problems on it. Which do you think is more offensive? Didn't you benefit anything from it then when you embraced it with as much zeal as you are your most recent set of beliefs now?

It's just not a good argument. You could say the same to an ex-criminal who is now a cop: be nice to criminals, because it is a part of their natural development, after all you too were an ex criminal.

I do not consider materialism criminal. That's your indefensible accusation, demonizing it as the source of the world's ills. I've refuted your claims, and you haven't addressed those at all, such as considering the various stages of moral development. No thoughts to those, and just sticking with your demonizing despite those very real variables?

Again, none of the articles you linked to cites PM as the cause of these current issues. That's something you're adding that they aren't. Can you spend some time addressing those points I brought up with me?

I am not denying materialism is better than superstition and just blind faith, although to be honest it suffers from very much the same problems as they do.

You'd be surprised how flawed how you see things is too. This holds true for all of us.

Yes, It is because of the enlightenment or the age of reason that science was set free from the controls of religion(well at least in the West) and it is true that in the beginning a lot of this was driven by methodological materialism, that is studying matter, the world of things dispassionately and we progressed like weve never progressed before.

We are agreed.

However, this lead to an unfortunate consequence, and that was the rise and rise of philosophical materialism as a dominant worldview that hijacked science.

I do not believe so. You are saying that IF you study the natural world, it will naturally lead to PM? That's what I'm reading you say here in the way you worded that. Again, it's much more complex than that, and I honestly think that the rise of what you are getting at is more "Scientism", than PM; which is the belief that Science, with a capital S will answer all life's questions, replacing Religion as the guiding light to Truth with a captial T.

I think that is the actual complaint here. I'm with you on that, by the way. What this is is really a "logical positivism", as opposed to simply positivism. This is where is moves from doing science, to a matter of faith. Logical positivism is the real problem here, I believe. Agreed?

Now, science has to be set free again, and this time from the materialist religion, so we can make even more progress.

I don't disagree with this either. I just simply disagree with you saying that PM is what causes these issues in society you claim they do. I'm trying to enlarge your perspective here a little. The things you cite are problems are problems, and I agree with you we need to widen our perspectives. But it's better to be accurate, then simply scapegoating something when the issue is far more systemic than PM, which is just one of several symptoms.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I do not consider materialism criminal. That's your indefensible accusation, demonizing it as the source of the world's ills. I've refuted your claims, and you haven't addressed those at all, such as considering the various stages of moral development. No thoughts to those, and just sticking with your demonizing despite those very real variables?

LOL, I was going to add "Not that materialists are criminals" but I thought it would not be necessary, because anybody reading correctly would see I did not say that. How wrong was I? I merely reduced your argument to absurdity with another argument. If somebody is wrong, you do not not tell them they are wrong, just because it is necessary to be wrong to learn what is right, and because you were wrong once too.

I just don't think you have any argument here at all. I am taking a stand against materialism and have a right to talk a stand against a philosophy/world/view and am entitled to especially in the context of a debate, where everybody is entitled to a position FOR and AGAINST. So I find it rather patronising for you to come and tell me "Oh be nice.... it is not spiritual to take a stand" Do you think Buddhist people are not spiritual just because they debate?

Debate is the great Indian tradition and debate is totally necessary for intellectual progress. I am not going to be nice to materialism. I am going to make sure I make every intellectual effort to smash it into smithereens. My undergrad dissertation was also anti-materialist LOL

Again, none of the articles you linked to cites PM as the cause of these current issues. That's something you're adding that they aren't. Can you spend some time addressing those points I brought up with me?

I am sorry I was going to respond to the rest of your post later. Basically you are right modernity and PM are not necessarily causally connected, but they are definitely highly correlated and that is what I want to show. I have never argued, even in the OP that PM leads to any kind of ethical behaviour. I said amorality NOT immortality. As PM is ontologically amoral it can lead to any kind of moral behaviour. Good and bad, but never necessary moral behaviour. It is because of this condition, that it can and often has lead to immoral behaviour, even though it is not necessarily implied by it.

You'd be surprised how flawed how you see things is too. This holds true for all of us.

I disagree my worldview is logically consistent. I wouldn't say it is complete, but insofar as everything we know so far it has the most explanatory and predictive power. Materialism has no explanatory power.

I do not believe so. You are saying that IF you study the natural world, it will naturally lead to PM? That's what I'm reading you say here in the way you worded that. Again, it's much more complex than that, and I honestly think that the rise of what you are getting at is more "Scientism", than PM; which is the belief that Science, with a capital S will answer all life's questions, replacing Religion as the guiding light to Truth with a captial T.

No, I am not saying that. You are reading things and responding to things I have not said. The study of the natural world does NOT lead to PM. What lead to PM was certain attitudes and assumptions that early Modern philosophers of science made, starting with Descartes, and them followed by the early empiricists Locke, Hobbes and then rationalists like Kant. The trajectory that modern Western philosophy took lead to PM becoming a dominant worldview held by scientists. You could perhaps trace it even back to Aristotle, who is a proto-empiricist, he rejected his teacher Plato's dualism, got rid of the 5th element ether which was the medium of mind, and made matter the only reality but imbued matter with ideas. He is the one responsible for the wrong turn early Western philosophy took. Western philosophy proceeded on wrong assumptions.

On the other, Indian philosophy did not make the same mistakes. I think this is because Indian philosophy had a far greater emphasis on precision of language and also enjoyed the benefit of being in Sanskrit, which is the most precise language in the word. Hence, we did make the same problems of misidentification of things like Western philosophy did e.g. In Indian philosophy not only do we not mistake the mind for the body, we do not mistake the mind for consciousness either. In Western philosophy, it is until only very recently, that mind and consciousness are being spoken about separately.

don't disagree with this either. I just simply disagree with you saying that PM is what causes these issues in society you claim they do. I'm trying to enlarge your perspective here a little. The things you cite are problems are problems, and I agree with you we need to widen our perspectives. But it's better to be accurate, then simply scapegoating something when the issue is far more systemic than PM, which is just one of several symptoms.

Well then, if you agree, then you should understand why I am taking a position against materialism and exposing all its problems. Materialism in the scientific world is currently holding back progress, and hence it becomes necessary to attack materialism to break down this wall.

And I am being accurate I said PM as amoral and nihilistic, because it is, because no such thing as morals and purposes can really exist in the worldview.

Can you let me respond to your earlier points before you reply back?

 

[sayak83]

Sure, in your solipsistic universe. Not in any single school or tradition of Vedanta. The very word "atman" mean soul.

If you are so confident that the Upanishads are preaching materialism, then go ahead and start a materialist school of interpretation by giving a materialist interpretation of the 13 principal Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita.
Until you do that, nobody is going to take any of your armchair scholar interpretations seriously.

It is quite clear now that you have created your own pseudoscientific theory of spiritualism and posing it as upanisadic doctrine. Consciousness is the amalgamation of highly varied and constantly changing mental phenomena...the roiling plane of sense perceptions, thoughts, emotions, hopes, dreams and fantasies. My consciousness today is different from the consciousness I have tomorrow and that I had yesterday. It is also completely different from your consciousness and that which a fish has. Constantly changing with every input or thought, coming and going, expanding and contracting, consciousness is certainly not the eternal ever stable uncaused and unaffected owner... the Atman that is the true subject matter of the Upanishads. Clearly you need to read the scriptures again. Mind, intellect, passion, sense perception, desire, will... that is the field of consciousness... and it is also the workings of nature. Perceiving and what is perceived, thinking and what is thought, feeling and what is felt, remembering and what is remembered, willing and what is desired... are all prakriti and all this is the field of consciousness.

Actions in all cases are performed by the qualities of material nature
He whose mind is confused by egoism feels "I am the doer"
But he who knows the truth of the two roles of qualities and actions
And considers "The qualities are working among qualities"
Is not attached

Gita 3:27-28

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It is quite clear now that you have created your own pseudoscientific theory of spiritualism and posing it as upanisadic doctrine.

This really is the pot calling the kettle black, if I ever saw one. What does this even mean "pseudoscientiic theory of spiritualism" do you even know the meaning of words you use? Dude, what I represent is an actual school of Vedanta, and I have been trained traditionally at it at a traditional ashram in India. I represent the Advaita tradition where Atman is consciousness(singular) but there are other traditions I don't represent like Dvaita and Viseshadvaita, and even in those schools Atman is the conscious Self(plural) They all accept mind-body dualism. What you represent is not a school of any Vedanta tradition in the last 2000 years or so. Not a single Hindu school. What you represent is modern neuroscience which you are using to interpret Vedanta to validate your faith. Sort of like how some Christians and Muslims try to validate their faith by linking it up with modern science.

Consciousness is the amalgamation of highly varied and constantly changing mental phenomena...the roiling plane of sense perceptions, thoughts, emotions, hopes, dreams and fantasies. My consciousness today is different from the consciousness I have tomorrow and that I had yesterday. It is also completely different from your consciousness and that which a fish has. Constantly changing with every input or thought, coming and going, expanding and contracting, consciousness is certainly not the eternal ever stable uncaused and unaffected owner... the Atman that is the true subject matter of the Upanishads. Clearly you need to read the scriptures again. Mind, intellect, passion, sense perception, desire, will... that is the field of consciousness... and it is also the workings of nature. Perceiving and what is perceived, thinking and what is thought, feeling and what is felt, remembering and what is remembered, willing and what is desired... are all prakriti and all this is the field of consciousness.

Actions in all cases are performed by the qualities of material nature
He whose mind is confused by egoism feels "I am the doer"
But he who knows the truth of the two roles of qualities and actions
And considers "The qualities are working among qualities"
Is not attached

Gita 3:27-28

Jesus man, stop citing the Gita and Upanishads already, when it has become clear to me and to loads of other Hinds that you cite them selectively, take them out of context and miss their meaning. The gita talks about the knower and the field of knowledge, it does not say "field of consciousness" and consciousness is NOT a tattva in the field. Here is what the Gita actually says:

1 The body is called a field, Arjuna; the one who knows it is called the Knower of the field. This is the knowledge of those who know. 2 I am the Knower of the field in everyone, Arjuna. Knowledge of the field and its Knower is true knowledge.

3 Listen and I will explain the nature of the field and how change takes place within it. I will also describe the Knower of the field and his power. 4 These truths have been sung by great sages in a variety of ways, and expounded in precise arguments concerning Brahman.

5 The field, Arjuna, is made up of the following: the five areas of sense perception; the five elements; the five sense organs and the five organs of action; the three components of the mind: manas, buddhi, and ahamkara; and the undifferentiated energy from which all these evolved. 6 In this field arise desire and aversion, pleasure and pain, the body, intelligence, and will.
​

This is classical Samkhya philosophy and Samkhya is dualism between consciousness matter. Here the dualism is between the purusha, the knower and prakriti, the field. Whatever is in the field includes sense perceptions, objects, ideas, feelings, personality, cognition. These are the things that change but the conscious person or the "I" does not change. The body changes, the mind changes, but the witness does not change. The Samkhya philosophy says that it is because we conflate our consciousness with the field that we think that we are changing, so your notion "My consciousness is changing" is due to an error of misidentication. Actually, it is consciousness that always remains unchanging and it is matter that is constantly changing. Therefor we need to reverse the identification by discriminating consciousness from matter. This is what Samkhya philosophy and the Gita which is based on is teaching.

You need to do a lot more reading in the area of Philosophy, whether that is Indian or Western. It is plainly apparent you don't have an education in Philosophy.

 

[Windwalker]

LOL, I was going to add "Not that materialists are criminals" but I thought it would not be necessary, because anybody reading correctly would see I did not say that. How wrong was I?

I wasn't suggesting you said materialists were criminal, but your analogy you used was saying PM itself is a crime. I could go back and look at it for the exact wording you used. You made a comparison of me not jumping on it like excusing a crime, or something like that.

I merely reduced your argument to absurdity with another argument. If somebody is wrong, you do not not tell them they are wrong, just because it is necessary to be wrong to learn what is right, and because you were wrong once too.

I take the position of partial truths. No one is 100% right, not even you. No one perspective hold all truth. All truths are partial truths. We live in a world of relative truths, not Absolutes. I very much take to heart what Aurobindo said in his wisdom,

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism has done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge.
​

You may of course correct error, but I try to avoid rash condemnations, and end up overlooking the gains. You may find as he said, "that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world."

I just don't think you have any argument here at all. I am taking a stand against materialism and have a right to talk a stand against a philosophy/world/view and am entitled to especially in the context of a debate, where everybody is entitled to a position FOR and AGAINST. So I find it rather patronising for you to come and tell me "Oh be nice.... it is not spiritual to take a stand" Do you think Buddhist people are not spiritual just because they debate?

I am not telling you, "Oh be nice... it is not spiritual to take a stand". I am saying when you take hard stands without trying to see the benefit or value in another's position, it is unwise. I'm all about debating a point, but hopefully in the process it expands your own understanding, rather than taking the position the other is just "wrong, wrong, wrong". There's nothing in what I've said that indicates what you say. I agree with you it's very limiting, but not unnecessary.

I disagree my worldview is logically consistent.

One's point of view can be logically consistent, but still wrong.

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.
Joseph Wood Krutchjas

Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice.
Elbert Hubbard

It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
James Harvey Robinson

Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.
Benjamin Jowett

Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities.
Lord Dunsany

He was in Logic a great critic,
Profoundly skill'd in Analytic;
He could distinguish, and divide
A hair 'twixt south and south-west side.
Samuel Butler, Hudibras.

We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic.
Sir Winston Churchill, Reply, House of Commons, Dec. 17, 1942.

...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse.
H. L. Mencken. The American Mercury. p. 75.
​

Be careful about claiming one's position is "logically consistent" and expect that to ultimately mean something. There are plenty of logically consistent ideas that are factually wrong.

I wouldn't say it is complete, but insofar as everything we know so far it has the most explanatory and predictive power.

Actually, I think there are other systems today that have more explanatory power, as for one thing there's a whole lot more information today that ancients knew nothing about. That alone says there at least should be something more sophisticated available.

Materialism has no explanatory power.

? Explain that.

On the other, Indian philosophy did not make the same mistakes. I think this is because Indian philosophy had a far greater emphasis on precision of language and also enjoyed the benefit of being in Sanskrit, which is the most precise language in the word. Hence, we did make the same problems of misidentification of things like Western philosophy did e.g. In Indian philosophy not only do we not mistake the mind for the body, we do not mistake the mind for consciousness either. In Western philosophy, it is until only very recently, that mind and consciousness are being spoken about separately.

I'm of the mind to take the best of what Eastern Enlightenment offers with what the Western Enlightenment offers. That provides a bigger picture, and more explanatory power than simply saying one is right and the other is wrong.

Well then, if you agree, then you should understand why I am taking a position against materialism and exposing all its problems.

Oh I do, and I have plenty I could say as well in addition to what you are saying, particularly how it guts all interior knowledge and relegates the subjective as totally unreliable. I have a lot I could say in criticism of it. But I'm trying to see it from a meta-perspective, not its direct enemy. I'm trying to see it as part of the whole, a necessary part of the whole.

Materialism in the scientific world is currently holding back progress, and hence it becomes necessary to attack materialism to break down this wall.

And you think attacking it will make people open to interior experience and awareness? How many times have people left their religion because you told them their God beliefs are silly and stupid?

Can you let me respond to your earlier points before you reply back?

Oops..

 

[sayak83]

This really is the pot calling the kettle black, if I ever saw one. What does this even mean "pseudoscientiic theory of spiritualism" do you even know the meaning of words you use? Dude, what I represent is an actual school of Vedanta, and I have been trained traditionally at it at a traditional ashram in India. I represent the Advaita tradition where Atman is consciousness(singular) but there are other traditions I don't represent like Dvaita and Viseshadvaita, and even in those schools Atman is the conscious Self(plural) They all accept mind-body dualism. What you represent is not a school of any Vedanta tradition in the last 2000 years or so. Not a single Hindu school. What you represent is modern neuroscience which you are using to interpret Vedanta to validate your faith. Sort of like how some Christians and Muslims try to validate their faith by linking it up with modern science.



Jesus man, stop citing the Gita and Upanishads already, when it has become clear to me and to loads of other Hinds that you cite them selectively, take them out of context and miss their meaning. The gita talks about the knower and the field of knowledge, it does not say "field of consciousness" and consciousness is NOT a tattva in the field. Here is what the Gita actually says:

1 The body is called a field, Arjuna; the one who knows it is called the Knower of the field. This is the knowledge of those who know. 2 I am the Knower of the field in everyone, Arjuna. Knowledge of the field and its Knower is true knowledge.

3 Listen and I will explain the nature of the field and how change takes place within it. I will also describe the Knower of the field and his power. 4 These truths have been sung by great sages in a variety of ways, and expounded in precise arguments concerning Brahman.

5 The field, Arjuna, is made up of the following: the five areas of sense perception; the five elements; the five sense organs and the five organs of action; the three components of the mind: manas, buddhi, and ahamkara; and the undifferentiated energy from which all these evolved. 6 In this field arise desire and aversion, pleasure and pain, the body, intelligence, and will.
​

This is classical Samkhya philosophy and Samkhya is dualism between consciousness matter. Here the dualism is between the purusha, the knower and prakriti, the field. Whatever is in the field includes sense perceptions, objects, ideas, feelings, personality, cognition. These are the things that change but the conscious person or the "I" does not change. The body changes, the mind changes, but the witness does not change. The Samkhya philosophy says that it is because we conflate our consciousness with the field that we think that we are changing, so your notion "My consciousness is changing" is due to an error of misidentication. Actually, it is consciousness that always remains unchanging and it is matter that is constantly changing. Therefor we need to reverse the identification by discriminating consciousness from matter. This is what Samkhya philosophy and the Gita which is based on is teaching.

You need to do a lot more reading in the area of Philosophy, whether that is Indian or Western. It is plainly apparent you don't have an education in Philosophy.

The lack of education is entirely at your end. The field that includes sense perceptions, ideas, feelings, personality, memory and cognition IS what is called consciousness in English and in Science. Consciousness is not a Sanskrit term. It is an English term, and a term of Western philosophy and science. This changing field is precisely the subject matter of science and western philosophy, not the atman or the purusha of the Upanisads and the Gita. Science or Western philosophy is not talking about either the atman or the purusha behind the field, they are defining consciousness to be this ever changing field of perception-idea-thought-memory-feeling-desire-will and discussing and investigating that.

One is not in error when one says one's consciousness is changing because consciousness is defined as this changing field. One will be in error (according to Hinduism) if one says that one is only this thing called consciousness and not the Atman or Purusha who is the owner/enjoyer of this conscious field.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Here's where I see the disconnect happening. While I largely agree with what you say above, you are equating philosophical materialism with science's focus on the workings of the natural world. That is not valid. I wouldn't even call the sciences "materialism" at all. Do you wish to claim all scientists are atheist materialists in their worldviews? I'll tell you they are not. And this here throws a major wrench into your argument that PM is the downfall of Western civilization. Modern science is not the same thing as PM, nor based upon it.

Not to forget however that most of this was based not on a rejection of God or spirituality, but in fact the pursuit of understanding God. To discover the "laws" of the natural world, was to discover God in nature. So the path of descension, in fact does not by default exclude God. What they did exclude however was non-scientific explanations, such as the church declaring how God did it. When the data came along that denied what the church claimed, the claim was not there was no God, but that the church's understanding was wrong about how God did it. This is very clearly NOT philosophical materialism.

So let's unpick these ideas a bit. First of all, it is true that if we speak purely in terms of ideals Science and PM do not go together. Similarly, again if we speak purely in terms of ideals modernity and PM do not necessarily go together. However, there is a distinction between how science ought to be practised and how it actually is actually practised. Likewise, modernity, is not necessarily linked with PM, but in practise it has very much been guided by the PM worldview.

Sorry if this a long post, but I have to very briefly cover the last 300 years of history of ideas to explain why PM has become a dominant worldview.

Certain assumptions creeped into science from its early beginnings. Descartes is usually credited as the father of Modern philosophy and also one of the key early Philosophers of Science. He sort of paved the way for Science to take off unfettered by the Church, this gets called the Cartesian attitude. He basically said that the realm of mind consisting of mind and consciousness is not available for scientific study because it lacks extension(i.e., not located in space) and it is indivisible. On the other hand, the realm of body or matter is available for scientific study because it has extension and is divisible. Matters of mind and consciousness were not the field of science but were the field of faith and religion. Henceforth, science would never contradict or encroach on matters of religion. This set Science free to study the world of matter and body.

Descartes also had some other assumptions which later came to bite him too. He considered animals nothing more than machines that behaved as if they were self-aware. His attitude towards animal was gruesome enough that would take cats and dogs apart to see how they worked, like any machine.

Later, philosophers challenged his assumptions the first one 1) The dualism between mind and matter and 2)That animals are machines but humans are not.

First to challenge him were early empiricist philosophers like Loke. Loke made a distinction between primary and secondary qualities, where primary qualities are physical quantities like mass, length, charge and secondary qualities are what primary qualities are felt like e.g. colour, touch, sound. So we can see by this stage the attitude had formed that somehow the world of mind and consciousness was all secondary and the world of body and matter was primary. This became the prevailing scientific attitude from around the 18th century, basically science became an almost purely materialistic activity and mind and consciousness was just there in the background, not doing much at all, and of little significance to science.

Around this time some schisms started to develop within the scientific community breaking up into those who were pure empiricists and pure rationalists. The empiricists were those that only believed that knowledge from experimenting is the only legitimate way of knowing reality. The rationalists were those that believed that certain knowledge was a priori and only from the mind. The empiricists were winning this battle though. Then Kant came along to start of synthesise the two, but in doing so he drew another huge rift between science and religion. He demonstrated, that in fact we cannot know anything beyond this empirical reality, any attempt at metaphysics was futile because reality in itself(noumena) can never be known. This actually dealt a death blow to all religion, metaphysics, spirituality etc -- if there is no way of knowing anything beyond this empirical world, then religion and metaphysics can make no claims to knowing what happens beyond.

Kant also reduced the idea of "God" to just a mere practical idea we need to make sense of the world.

Now that "God" is merely just an idea. Naturally, it made people question do we really need this idea? Many rejected the need for this idea and we see the rise of atheism.

Then came along Freud, Freud was the one to finally turn Descartes on his head and he removed another idea that until then everybody took for granted or what is now considered folk psychology, that is common sense notions that we are independent selves with our own independent free will and thoughts. No, in fact, Freud showed that there are strong unconscious biological drives, particularly our sexual drives that drive our behaviour. That in fact, we were "desire producing machines." In effect, he had reduced like Descartes had reduced animals, to only these biological machines.

Around the same time Darwin was completing his "Origin of species" which was able to show that humans are just more evolved animals. So now combine the two revolutionary ideas coming from two major fields of science: Biology and Psychology: Humans are just evolved animals and and biological machines. Later, Skinner took this to its natural conclusion with his theory of classical conditioning or Pavlog's dog, to show essentially we can program animals and humans like machines.

Fast forward to contemporary Neuroscience and now the dominant theory is that humans are machines and we will eventually be able to build strong AI or conscious AI like machines.

The prevailing worldview within the scientific world has been of PM. That is not to say all scientists are PM, but their beliefs in anything like mind and consciousness existing is considered only a private belief, of no importance to actually science, just their faith which they better keep to themselves. Any attempt by a scientist to take mind and consciousness seriously leads to derision by the scientific community e.g. even in the field of quantum physics, speaking about consciousness is taboo. In other words science as it is actually practised assumes PM as a default worldview.


On Modernity:

I will say less on this, as its a far more complex historical phenomena, but it is also strongly tied in with PM. Like Descartes facilitated the separation between science and religion, events in politics faciliated the rise of secularism that is the total separation of the state from religion. The state separated from religion as the primary controller of society, now has to substitute it with another socio-economic system, as the main systems that emerged were capitalism and communism, both which were premised on materialism. Capitalism was based on a Social Darwinian, survival of the fittest type of model, where some people could rise to the top using their business acumen and wealth and others had to serve them. Communism was based on dialectical materialism, which assumed that the base material conditions of society determine the superstructure of society such as religion, art, culture etc and that we are all essentially material beings. Communism makes it a point to declare atheism and materialism as your belief.

So again, like with science, mind and consciousness basically become something not important, just a private affair and nothing to do with the actual state. The state was to be purely driven by only material needs.


In short this is why both science and modernity were guided and informed by the principle of PM for the last 300 years or so. Neither should be connected to PM in idea, but in practice they are very strongly connected.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The lack of education is entirely at your end. The field that includes sense perceptions, ideas, feelings, personality, memory and cognition IS what is called consciousness in English and in Science. Consciousness is not a Sanskrit term. It is an English term, and a term of Western philosophy and science. This changing field is precisely the subject matter of science and western philosophy, not the atman or the purusha of the Upanisads and the Gita. Science or Western philosophy is not talking about either the atman or the purusha behind the field, they are defining consciousness to be this ever changing field of perception-idea-thought-memory-feeling-desire-will and discussing and investigating that.

One is not in error when one says one's consciousness is changing because consciousness is defined as this changing field. One will be in error (according to Hinduism) if one says that one is only this thing called consciousness and not the Atman or Purusha who is the owner/enjoyer of this conscious field.

Of course there is a Sanskrit term for consciousness it is called Chit. Atman is defined as have three intrinsic aspects consciousness, bliss and existence. The quality of the purusha is defined as consciousness.

You can also follow the logical argument: I am not what I am aware of. I am aware of my body, I am not my body; I am aware of the mind, I am not my mind; I am aware of my ego, I am not my ego. Hence, there are two things awareness and objects of awareness. This is very basic 101 Vedanta philosophy.

Anyway, I have no faith in your intelligence anymore. I am not wasting anymore time trying to correct your errors in understanding Philosophy. You are free to remain in your solipsistic universe. In that universe you are a scholar, a philosopher, Vedantist and Sanskritist.

 

[sayak83]

Of course there is a Sanskrit term for consciousness it is called Chit. Atman is defined as have three intrinsic aspects consciousness, bliss and existence. The quality of the purusha is defined as consciousness.

You can also follow the logical argument: I am not what I am aware of. I am aware of my body, I am not my body; I am aware of the mind, I am not my mind; I am aware of my ego, I am not my ego. Hence, there are two things awareness and objects of awareness. This is very basic 101 Vedanta philosophy.

Anyway, I have no faith in your intelligence anymore. I am not wasting anymore time trying to correct your errors in understanding Philosophy. You are free to remain in your solipsistic universe. In that universe you are a scholar, a philosopher, Vedantist and Sanskritist.

It is sad to see you set in your delusional ways. Projecting your own ignorance and incompetence on others will do you no good. I would advice you to seek a guru and not rely on your own completely mistaken notions of scriptures that have led you so badly astray. Wish you best of luck.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Alright, I'll bite - what DO you think imbued the human form with consciousness?

This is what you are not understanding. There does not have to be anybody imbuing the human form with consciousness. There are non-materialist worldviews which have no God e.g. in Jainism there are infinite monad or souls that are eternal i.e., there was never a time when they were not conscious. These infinite monads travel up and down the realms of the universe forever.

For the record I do believe in God, though it has taken me a long time to come around to it. However, what is important in this debate is not God, but to show there is a soul. That is I am a spiritual being who is currently incarnated in this material body, and using it do my work. This material body is required to work in the material world, in very much the same way a human requires a spacesuit to operate in space or on Mars. I just do not mistake myself to be this meat suit like you do.

So your assumption is that in a materialist society, everyone would accept everyone else's view that they are right? Basically - you think that in a society full of materialist individuals, NO ONE would ever think anyone else's action was wrong? Seriously? In other words... you saw a window, and you figured you'd just throw your credibility out of it... does that about sum up the situation here?

You are telling me morality is subjective. If it is, then of course you have no right to impose your morals on me. You could say "YOU ARE WRONG" but it will be according to you. I can easily find somebody who thinks I am right, but again according to them. Therefore you reduce morals to just opinions. If I am about to rob and kill an old lady how will you stop me? Will you tell me "This absolutely disgusting, despicable, evil, monsterous act" and I will just reply "According to your opinion"

You either accept morality is objective and then you have a basis to determine what is moral and what isn't, otherwise you have no justification to say anything is right or wrong.

Studies done on a bunch of people stuck in the machine. Do you think of "ugliness" as an objective truth? You seem to. And you would get that from where if not instinctual and societal influence? Nature and nurture. With your insistence on this point you prove yourself unable to rise above the directives fed to and bred within you.

Yes. You yourself admitted we have a bias for symmetry etc. We largely agree cross-culturally who is ugly and who is beautiful. There are objective measurable features of beauty. Sure, you can rise above it, but you will still get treated differently by others. This is nature of the world, it is unfair. People get treated differently. It is on every criteria it happens, looks, intelligence, wealth, gender, sexuality, caste, creed. This is why I say if this is the only world, it sucks.

And it hardly a coincidence that the Western world suffers the highest rates of depression and mental health fiseases.

My belief (admittedly all it is) is that life is imminent - meaning when the conditions are right, and given time for the perfect mixtures to coalesce, life will arise. Matter is already seen to be active in seeking more stable, or advantageous conditions for itself without consciousness even in the picture. I believe the arising of life to be a fundamental law of the universe.

Well at least you agree it is a belief. I am just saying it is a ridiculous belief, just as ridiculous as skeletons coming out of their grave one day and coming back to life.

Why do atoms "want" stable configurations within molecules? If anything was able to come to a state of life, it happened out of innate forces pushing it there. Why wouldn't the matter involved remain in a state of sustaining that stable relationship? Even moving and seeking more stable relationships, e.g. evolving.

Great question, you've just pushes it back even further. Yes, why do atoms want to be stable? In fact why would they "want" anything? If it is just blind matter it would not have a preference for any configuration. It would just be chaos of atoms flying about in every direction colliding against each other. It would never go onto form any structure. This, by the way, is known as the anthropic principle that is that every variable of the universe is finetuned for humans to arise. If anything was off by a minuscule percent, there would be no stable matter.

Another fiction that you buy just as ridiculous as your Pinocchio fiction is evolution by natural selection or random mutations. You seem to think first there was some chemical soup, then the chemical soup mophed into a single cell, and then single cell morphed multi-cellular organism, and it morphed and get every more complex until it formed the human organism.

This theory is based on a naive observation at the time of Darwin that single cells were just amorphous blobs that over a long time joined with other blobs, and then the blobs join with others. What Darwin did not know, that a single cell is not an amorphous blob, because he did not have an electron microscope, a single cell is a mind bogglingly complex factory of nanomachinary, so complex that even our latest nanotechnology we cannot build something like it. It consists of 100,000 parts each functioning as a single system, every moment there are hundreds and thousands of processes going on in the cell. In biology it described as analogous to a factory, actually it is like an entire factory city. It consists of a central processing department, memory storage, manufacturing plants, defense and military, power plants, waste disposal unit, supply and shipping. The entire functioning is entirely precise. The central processing units sends the instructions, the ribosome in the manufacturing aspect then according to specific instructions manufacture proteins. There are several millions of these nanomachines that assemble the proteins precisely according to instructions sent by the nucleus

To illustrate how absurd it is that all of this just assembled all by itself by trial and error is like turning up on an alien planet and finding an entire city abandoned and then saying the city built itself. Basically, you materialists believe in total fantasy. You even put the guys who believe skeletons will come alive one day to shame.

If I am a materialist in the first place. Regardless... I have an "answer" for everything, just as well as you do. You have nothing I can't counter. Probably the same for you. The only thing is, I will never call on a supernatural force to explain anything.

Of course you will have an answer or retort to every argument I make. That does not mean it has validity though. Your worldview has absolutely no explanatory power to explain how the world works. You just rely on fantasies -- somehow lifeless matter came to life --- then somehow it assembled itself --- then somehow it became human and started asking how we got here.

Don't go adding your smug little emojis yet... as I stated already, I have a counter for anything you've got. This is no different. Just as you stated, DNA contains instruction for physical make-up. However, you're forgetting that,as I mentioned previously, PHYSICAL CHANGE takes place in the brain in order to account for the accrual of new memories and experience. Why couldn't the physical make-up of the brain be coded in the DNA to contain pre-determined patterns of matter that act as KNOWLEDGE - that substitute for EXPERIENCE? In fact, I believe they can and do. The spider's brain is crafted with the "neural pathways" that define its inborn knowledge. And it can use that "knowledge" from birth... just as if it had learned it, but without having to take the time. There... taken care of. And I didn't even need to use an emoji.

Your argument rests on a possibility "why can't it" It like the argument "What if one day AI becomes conscious" There is absolutely no basis in biology, micribology neurbiology, neurochemsitry for DNA to contain knowledge. DNA contains only instructions on how to build the body, not knowledge. There is no basis for DNA to pass on memories, ideas and thoughts. If that was true, then I would have the memories and ideas of my parents.[/quote]