• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anti-Materialism

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In no way, shape or form is this verified. That's why there's the hard problem of consciousness.
I consider my body made up of matter. Wherever I go, the thing I call my "consciousness" follows. I recognize the "consciousness" of other beings, and I also witness that they, too, are made of matter, and their "consciousness" travels with them. I am unable to, for instance, access the consciousness of another being from outside of their body, and I have never been "visited" by the consciousness of another that was not a visit first initiated by proximity to that other's body. From all appearances and detectable medium, the thing called "consciousness" seems to terminate upon the death of the subject. From this, I, personally, have no choice but to infer that consciousness is a property of a living body. You can infer otherwise as you wish - but I would assert that this is contrary to the evidence as it presents itself in the universe we live within.

I probably over-stepped my bounds as stating that matter imbued with consciousness is a "fact". However, I'm not sure of many other things that aren't considered "fact" that are so rudimentarily probable, so apparently displayed, and so commonly taken for granted.

Electrical signals flow through the body while a being is alive. These signals activate the physical matter in specific patterns and ways - ways that CAN be measured as activity in the brain. Once this energy is no longer running its course through the body, the measurable activity (in fact, all abstracted bodily activity) stops. Doesn't seem like much of a "problem" to me - nor all that "hard".
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In no way, shape or form is this verified. That's why there's the hard problem of consciousness.
And actually, I looked up the "hard problem of consciousness" and it doesn't have much to do with whether or not material encompasses consciousness at all. It is, instead, concerned with why particular material phenomena produce non-material reactions in us that are difficult to quantify based on only the function of the systems involved in processing the experience.

Directly from the article:

"It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises."

Mistaken applications of abstract concepts like this is the main reason I don't tend to quote things or use terms unless I am absolutely certain of their meaning. I like to stick to experience, and my own expression/wording of the issues and ideas I wish to convey.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I probably over-stepped my bounds as stating that matter imbued with consciousness is a "fact". However, I'm not sure of many other things that aren't considered "fact" that are so rudimentarily probable, so apparently displayed, and so commonly taken for granted.
We parse the world and assign it terms, shapes, and flavours of description. I think it's a "fact" in as far as the language we currently have developed serves to describe such things.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
That does explain much. No offense meant at all, but it certainly adds context. Being an Ex-Whatever, tends to make someone less than fair and balanced in their current assessments as they try to differentiate themselves from their former selves. This is well known to me. It has value as part of your process, but you should at some point come to see it as such. Objectivity pays a price during that process, but that's okay.

No offence taken. Sure I can agree if you are an ex-member it could make you less fair and balanced towards it, but it could also make you understand it better and more intimately. I think it is more the latter than the former, I use to think and say exactly the same things materialists here and elsewhere use to say, I understand the reasons behind it and type of thinking that informs it and I also know the implications of those views too. I just left this way of thinking some 15 years ago but I examined it and found it wanting. I have changed worldviews several times throughout life from one to the other after examining it threadbare and finding faults in it, in the classic Upanishadic way of "neti neti" not this, not this.

I consider materialists at a lower level of intellectual development. We have stages for this is in Vedanta thinking(current worldview I hold) which we actually consider necessary, but a lower stage. That is when comparing one impermanent thing with another or otherwise rational or scientific thinking, which is what we know as "Nyaya-Vaiseshika" but the culmination of this is to arrive at a metaphysical pluralism. That is, if you apply consistent logical thinking, you will realise there are several irreducible classes of substances. They are irreducible because of properties. I name something different from another because of different properties e.g. I name sugar, "sugar" because it has the property of sweetness and I name salt "salt" because it has the property saltiness. I do not get the two confused. I can differentiate classes of things. When I analyse empirical reality in this way, I can classify substances by their differentiating property.

This is what I find when I do classify accordingly that what we call "matter" is reducible to only 5 categories because it is through the 5 senses that we receive information about it. These are either particles or waves:

Ears: Hearing: Waves
Skin: Touching: Force particles
Eyes: Seeing: Light particles
Tongue: Tasting: Fluid particles
Nose: Smelling: Solids particles

The properties that belong to matter are thus hearing(vibration, sound) touch(charge) sight(colour) taste(spin) and smell(mass). This is more or less in agreement with our modern standard model elementary particles only have these properties.

Physical properties include:

Substances that I cannot see, I have to infer. I cannot see gravity for example, but I can feel it as the force pulls things down. I have to infer its existence.


Then are other properties that are not reducible to these 5 material elements, e.g. the properties of spatialness, like directions up, down, left, right, length, breadth, height, long, short. I therefore posit another substance as their locus: Space.

Then there are properties like temporality, past, present and future. I therefore posit another substance as their locus and that is Time.

Then there are properties like cognition, thinking, memory, thoughts, ideas, personality. I therefore posit another substance as their locus and that is Mind.

Finally, there are properties like awareness, knowledge, pleasure and pain. I therefore posit another substance as their locus and that is Consciousness.

I therefore end up with a metaphysical pluralist ontology of 9 irreducible substances: 5 material elements, space, time, mind and consciousness. I have arrived it by using a consistent logical classification by which I can differentiate salt from sugar. I can similarly, differentiate particles from waves and one elementary particle from another. This is the same ontology we have arrived at today in modern physics hence we have two models one that deals with particles(GR) and one with waves(QM) and space and time.

However, the same is exactly true for mind and consciousness. We have found exactly the same to be true in Modern Philosophy of Mind and Neuroscience that mind is not reducible to matter, and this is formalised as the "Soft and Hard Problem of Consciousness" Several contemporary thought experiments such as Searl's Chinese Room, Nagel's 'Whats it like to be a bat" or Jackson's Mary's room have demonstrated that mind, matter and consciousness are irreducible --- that is by showing there is a type of knowledge that we have is other than material.

The materialist is therefore trying to force an impossibility by reducing consciousness and mind to matter. It is akin to mistaking the salt for the sugar.

The reason why we have the Nyaya-Vaiseshika system is for us to rationally investigate empirical reality and correctly classify it so that we do not make mistakes of understanding. The most important step is to realise mind-body dualism and then mind and consciousness dualism. Having realised that, you will not mistake yourself for the body(and at a more advanced stage the mind) Real spirituality only begins when you can separate yourself from the body -- like evaporating the water to reveal the sugar in my analogy. I thus, consider anybody that has not reached this realisation at a lower level of intellectual development.
 
Last edited:

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
If you asked someone to show evidence of an operating system within the hardware of a computer by opening up a computer and looking at the bits of plastic and metal, you won't find it. That doesn't mean that operating system is not part of the computer and must be on some otherwordly plane from the computer. Software and hardware are both physical things, the former a physical system emergent from the physical hardware.

I have heard this analogy before, and it suffers from the same problems as previous analogies before the computer age to describe the mind, such as the wind mill or the clockwork mechanisms(system of cogs and gears). Materialists have a tendency to compare the mind to the latest technology we have. The problem is this they are entirely physical systems and there is no inner and outer dichotomy as we have with the mind-body. The mind aspect is the awareness aspect which is aware of the body aspect as something separate. In a clock, the inner clockwork mechanism is not aware of the outer clock dials. Similarly, in hardware and software, the software is not aware of the hardware aspect as something separate. In fact, they are not separate, we only make the distinction as a level of abstraction. At the real level a computer is just a circuit of currents of high and low voltage being directed by the CPU by a set of instructions(machine code) of 1's an O's which turn transistors on and off. In order to "see" this we need a display unit. A computer system is not self-aware.

There is another analogy, this time from the opposite camp mind-body dualists of the radio. If a radio is live and playing music, one can mistake that the music is being generated by the radio because the radio and the music is superimposed. If you turn a dial the the music get louder or quieter. If you press a switch the music turns off and turns on. If then we use materialist logic we have to conclude a relationship of causation between the radio and the music: The radio generates the music. Of course we know this is not true. The radio does not generate the music but receives the music. The transmitter of the music is in a remote location. The manipulation of the dials and switches on the radio only alters how the radio interacts with the music but not the music itself.

I have no reason to believe things like emotions and self-identity and morality aren't the same. And plenty of reason to believe it is, such as manipulation of a physical brain effects all of those things in a predictable way, to the extent that all of those things can be permanently changed merely by effecting the physical brain.

So the above radio analogy answers how it is possible that manipulating and affecting the brain causes the mind, emotions etc to be affected does not necessarily imply that the brain is causing them. It could also mean that the by manipulating or even damaging the brain you are affecting its ability to receive consciousness. There is evidence for this as I mentioned earlier, in NDE studies it has been shown the brain acts like a stop valve for the expression of consciousness. It is actually when the brain has completely stopped, that consciousness becomes much more vivid and intense. In NDE experiences the electrical activity measured by EEG has completely stopped, but the subject reports the most vivid, intense and life transforming experiences of their life. These experiences are so profound that on returning the subject never relates to life in the same way again. A famous militant atheist, in fact one of the most prominent logical postivists A.J Ayer had an NDE that completely changed his attitude and views: An Analysis of the Near-Death Experiences of Atheists

We also have NDE reports, reported by credible medical professionals who are atheists themselves, where the subject not only had an NDE but an OOBE and has described in detail what they saw while out of their body when their body was clinically dead. Such as the operating room conversations, the attempts to revive them, the operations done and even what was happening in nearby wards. In one a subject even reported there was a shoe hanging out of a window on the upper ward. Only to be later confirmed.

And despite the dubious claims of people in 'parapsychology,' nobody has sufficiently demonstrated any non-physical thing beaming into or out of the body, or that anything 'non-physical' about the body does anything meaningfully at all.

They are not just "claims" they are experimentally documented scientific data from controlled experiments published in peer reviewed scientific journals. This is another problem with materialists, they pretend that parapsychology is just some fringe group of occultists going around ghost hunting, but actually they are actual scientists, some notable famous nobel prize winning ones as well, who like other scientists do scientific research, conduct experiments, document their findings and publish in scientific journals. There is more 100 years of scientific literature in parapsychology. The materialist only denies the field because it is studying areas that are not material.
We have actually valid scientific experiments which have attempted to detect the soul separated from the body and there is compelling data close to proving the soul does in fact exist.

I am consistent, I do not deny or select data according to my beliefs. However, I charge materialists of hypocrisy. They do not have a consistent standard of truth. In fact they admit it to, one famous militant materialist, skeptic and atheist admitted this "Remote viewing(clairvoyance basically) would be considered proven by the standard of any other science, but because it is an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence" This is not science.
There is similar compelling evidence close to proving reincarnation by pioneer Ian Stevenson, it was so compelling that even Carl Sagan took note, but it is only because of the materialist dogma that despite this research existing, it has been more or less ignored.

So it is not the case that Parapsychology has not found valid scientific evidence, an honest researcher can peruse 100 years of scientific literature to find out, it is because materialists stuck firm to their beliefs that materialism is true that all this evidence gets ignored. Therefore, materialists are not true scientists, they are closer to religious believers. They believe in similar fantasies that religious people believe in, like some religious people that on the day of judgement skeletons will come out of their graves and and come alive again, and materialists believe that matter as dead as rocks came alive. As far as I am concerned, because I am consistent, they are both superstitious and irrational.

There are a myriad of arguments against anthropic principle and fine tuned universe that I find more compelling. Both require unnecessary assumptions, the latter of which can be dismissed quickly with something as simple as the puddle analogy. There's no evidence the world was built to suit life, there is evidence life developed to suit the world, just like you wouldn't assume a puddle was carved out in a specific way for a body of water, rather that the body of water was shaped by the hole it's filling.

I have decided to drop arguments trying to prove God exists, because I think it is a discussion for another thread. Here I just want to focus on materialism and especially the illogical belief that matter comes alive. As for me this only happens in fairy tales and thus materialists are actually fairy tale believers, and cannot be taken anymore seriously than people who believe in unicorns and Santa clause.

Cont.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No offence taken. Sure I can agree if you are an ex-member it could make you less fair and balanced towards it, but it could also make you understand it better and more intimately. I think it is more the latter than the former, I use to think and say exactly the same things materialists here and elsewhere use to say, I understand the reasons behind it and type of thinking that informs it and I also know the implications of those views too.
Trust me when I say don't underestimate the unresolved stuff you have back there. It can take decades sometimes to get to what's hiding back there. The layers of the onion go quite deep into shadowlands. I know what this is quite well.

I just left this way of thinking some 15 years ago but I examined it and found it wanting. I have changed worldviews several times throughout life from one to the other after examining it threadbare and finding faults in it, in the classic Upanishadic way of "neti neti" not this, not this.
Well, I'm not so sure about the application of Neti Neti to this. ;) I understand "not this, not that", at a slightly different level. It's not a matter of finding yet one more system or model, or one more truth verses that in a matter of evaluation and elimination. If you're still doing that, you have not arrive yet at "not this, not that".

I consider materialists at a lower level of intellectual development.
Well, actually, in the grand scheme of developmental models, it's like right around midway point. Prior to that, you have folks operating a mythic-literal stories as facts. Prior to those you have those thinking it all happens by magic tied right to them. Prior to that you have just basic impulse instinct, etc. You certainly have higher stages than that, but they certainly aren't at the lowest levels.

We have stages for this is in Vedanta thinking(current worldview I hold) which we actually consider necessary, but a lower stage.
But then I ask you, why do you rail against it if you understand it, at least intellectually, as "necessary"? Would you criticize a five year old for being five? This is what I mean by an "Ex" fighting against their own former selves they wish to differentiate against. Your systems acknowledges the lower stages, but you seem to take it as a mission to show how "wrong" it is. Why, if it is considered "necessary"? Is it "wrong" to be five? Please be honest here.

The materialist is therefore trying to force an impossibility by reducing consciousness and mind to matter. It is akin to mistaking the salt for the sugar.
I have no objection to this. I agree. There is more to reality than this particular way of thinking about it exposes. It excludes things which are not easily reducible, and thus creates a quite narrow reality. But then again, it's not as narrow as a magical "God-did-it" reality, which doesn't even dare to pull back the covers to see the how it works, that materialism exposes. That's why it contributes to a deeper and higher and wider understanding which includes, but surpasses it. Something for you to bear in mind.

The reason why we have the Nyaya-Vaiseshika system is for us to rationally investigate empirical reality and correctly classify it so that we do not make mistakes of understanding.
I'd advise being cautious here. You used to think materialism had all the answers. Now you think this system does. You see what I mean? You're bring this whole "who has the answers" mentality with you, when in the end they are all simply systems or models to try to talk about our experience of reality. Your experience, surpassed materialism, at a certain point. But don't make the mistake that when you find a system that answers the larger questions you now have, that at some point you will need to move beyond this one. Such it seems is the case until you finally release into "not knowing", that you find the Answer is not a truth for the mind at all.

Real spirituality only begins when you can separate yourself from the body -- like evaporating the water to reveal the sugar in my analogy.
To a point. There are many traditions, such a tantric traditions, which find Emptiness through the exploration of form. This is something else for you to consider on the path of loosening your grip on reality with your mind. In the end, it is all about release.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In the first part of my reply I have laid out the proposition that anti-materialism itself is a product of irrational bias (just like anti-theism) as it has no solid intellectual, rational or moral ground to base itself on.
Anti-Materialism

I had said:-
Each part of the three part thesis below has to be conclusively demonstrated before one can claim an intellectual-rational-moral right to be anti-X.

1) One has to show that X is conclusively wrong so that no future evidence can change this assessment.
(eg. X is a belief that the earth is flat). one gains an intellectual right to be anti-X
AND
2) X is irrational and hence one cannot lead a rational life with a commitment to X.
(eg. X is a belief that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are true) One gains a rational right to be anti-X
AND
3) X is immoral and/or unethical so that one cannot logically lead a moral life with a commitment to X.
(eg. X is a belief that causing suffering to other beings is the supreme goal of life). One gains a moral right to be anti-X.

I also showed how the first of the OP's arguments is simple an argument from personal incredulity and hence clearly fails (1) as future evidence (development of conscious AI) can indeed refute it. It also fails (2) as no logical disproof of the idea that such a conscious AI cannot be built has been provided (and does not exist, and cannot exist if Upanisadic seers on which OP poster's own beliefs are based on are right). Let's now look at the other arguments,

So far I have shown that the first two arguments provided in the OP fails the three criteria that can justify one's position to be hostile to a specific ideology or worldview. Now let us look at the principle of a-morality

3. It is amoral. Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do.


A materialist in general believes that human groups and societies are creators and enforcers of ethics and moral laws. They believe that morality is a form of technology (just like airplanes or medicines or money) invented by humans for the purpose of greater cooperative efficacy between individuals in a cooperative group. Like all forms of technology, the moral rules can be objective assessed by how far they are able deliver the things they were invented for namely:-
1) Greater ability to pursue and sustain mutually beneficial cooperative projects.

Therefore materialists provide a clear and rational account of
a) What ethics and morality are (a form of technology)
b) How they arose and why they exist (increasing the scale and benefits of group cooperation)
c) How to assess the various competing versions (how far it delivers on this).

People arguing that things invented by humans are somehow fictions need to take a second look at the enormous causal power if similarly invented concepts like language and word meanings, monetary system and finance, nations states and governments and borders and engineering technologies like ships, planes, internet etc. To a materialist all of these are causally potent emergent structures of matter-energy no different than naturally occurring emergent wholes like stars, planets, cyclones, ecosystems etc. with their own completely novel set of properties, qualities and actions.

To the argument that because they are invented, anybody can do anything...the argument is refuted by showing how language and its invented systems of meaning and grammar works. While there is considerable flexibility and evolution, at each point in time, there are bounds of intelligibility, that cannot be flouted if one wishes to talk to others. Similar is the case for using economic tools or following moral norms. There is nothing worrisome here.

Once again, the question is not whether the account is true or not..that will require evidence based arguments for and against. But it is a rational and cogent account of ethics and morality that is potentially verifiable or falsifiable by further arguments, investigation and observation. I certainly think that there is more to morality than this, but I do not think that the above description suffers from any of the charges the OP asserts.​

 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Well, I'm not so sure about the application of Neti Neti to this. ;) I understand "not this, not that", at a slightly different level. It's not a matter of finding yet one more system or model, or one more truth verses that in a matter of evaluation and elimination. If you're still doing that, you have not arrive yet at "not this, not that".

I disagree with this. If you need to get somewhere and you are perpetually looking for a map to get to that point, you will never get there. Eventually, we need to settle on a map to take us where we want to go. If we spend out entire life theorising, we have to eventually agree on a worldview that will bring us practical benefits.
I have realised now after 20 years of theorising how little of spirituality theory accounts for, it is 99% practice.


Well, actually, in the grand scheme of developmental models, it's like right around midway point. Prior to that, you have folks operating a mythic-literal stories as facts. Prior to those you have those thinking it all happens by magic tied right to them. Prior to that you have just basic impulse instinct, etc. You certainly have higher stages than that, but they certainly aren't at the lowest levels.

I did not say it was the lowest, but only that it is lower than dualism and lower than idealism. I ultimately an idealist in theory but a dualist in practice.


But then I ask you, why do you rail against it if you understand it, at least intellectually, as "necessary"? Would you criticize a five year old for being five? This is what I mean by an "Ex" fighting against their own former selves they wish to differentiate against. Your systems acknowledges the lower stages, but you seem to take it as a mission to show how "wrong" it is. Why, if it is considered "necessary"? Is it "wrong" to be five? Please be honest here.

It is necessary because this is the dominant worldview today and it has lead to a society in spiritual crisis, narcissistic, nihilistic and amoral. Not to mention new dangers like WMD, destruction of ecosystems etc. The need is for a spiritual alternative, even felt by materialist and atheist philosophers like Sam Harris.


I'd advise being cautious here. You used to think materialism had all the answers. Now you think this system does. You see what I mean? You're bring this whole "who has the answers" mentality with you, when in the end they are all simply systems or models to try to talk about our experience of reality. Your experience, surpassed materialism, at a certain point. But don't make the mistake that when you find a system that answers the larger questions you now have, that at some point you will need to move beyond this one. Such it seems is the case until you finally release into "not knowing", that you find the Answer is not a truth for the mind at all.

You are going beyond what I have actually said. I never said the Nyaya-Vaiseshika system is the system I now follow and practice. In fact I said it was at the lower stage of intellectual development. If you analyse what exists you end up with a metaphysical pluralist ontology. If you analyse further you end up at a metaphysical dualist ontology and if you analyse even further you end up at metaphyical idealist onology. Materialism is not a stage on the way, it is based on wrong classification. As I showed you, it is like mistaking the salt for the sugar. It is a thus an ontology based on mistaken identification.

To a point. There are many traditions, such a tantric traditions, which find Emptiness through the exploration of form. This is something else for you to consider on the path of loosening your grip on reality with your mind. In the end, it is all about release.

I already know all this, I realise the emptiness of all forms, but I have to beyond this void to the actual substance of reality the point where I stop being an agnostic and can be practical. If you are always agnostic or mystical you never really get anywhere. The emptiness form is to realise that there is no such thing as substances, that substances are just momentary states of fleeting qualities. The previous view NV assumes the view that there has to be substances for the locus of qualities, but the Buddhist deny that there is any fixed locus, that really reality is just fleeting states which we mentally associate together to create the impressions of substances like matter, mind, space, time and mind. In fact it constant change. However, this view is superseded still by Samkhya dualism, because it explains that while everything is indeed always changing and all of that is in the domain of nature, there is an unchanging factor which is awareness. But even the changing factor is not random, nature is governed by laws of change or gunas. This is why things do not change randomly. Your face is not going to change into somebody elses face the next moment, because the gunas maintain it. Although we know every moment that the atoms that make up your face change vanish and appear somewhere else, at the empirical level it is fairly constant and coherent. Therefore, there are principles regulating the change. These principles in turn work in service of the conscious Self. It is due to consciousness that nature behaves coherently, otherwise it would be random.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
We have found exactly the same to be true in Modern Philosophy of Mind and Neuroscience that mind is not reducible to matter, and this is formalised as the "Soft and Hard Problem of Consciousness" Several contemporary thought experiments such as Searl's Chinese Room, Nagel's 'Whats it like to be a bat" or Jackson's Mary's room have demonstrated that mind, matter and consciousness are irreducible --- that is by showing there is a type of knowledge that we have is other than material... Real spirituality only begins when you can separate yourself from the body -- like evaporating the water to reveal the sugar in my analogy. I thus, consider anybody that has not reached this realisation at a lower level of intellectual development.

Has anyone you've talked to literally stated that what you refer to as "the mind" is matter? That is, that "consciousness" is matter? That thoughts are literally material? I highly doubt it. That is because the thing we call consciousness only arises from matter - it is not, itself, matter. It is an ephemeral phenomenon brought to bear by an individual by the accessing of information stores that have been transcribed onto matter (the brain).

It is the difference between the hard-drive in a computer, which stores the information in a physical, material way, and the activity of the central processing unit - by which software interfaces scan the physical storage, and use their algorithms to decipher that information. The process by which the central processing unit and software deciphers the information for general consumption is NOT MATTER. Abstract interpretation of electrical highs and lows in energy streams is NOT MATTER. Are we to say, then, that the machine possesses this same sort of "irreducible" property? Do we call it "mind"? Is the machine "conscious?" If not, then how do you explain this non-material "interpretation" of data and meta-data that goes on inside this PHYSICAL machine? Is this "soul?" What is it? Do you have an answer?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
So far I have shown that the first two arguments provided in the OP fails the three criteria that can justify one's position to be hostile to a specific ideology or worldview. Now let us look at the principle of a-morality

You have done no such thing. Throughout this thread all you have done is ignore the arguments I have made and I have even pointed out how many times you've done it and showed it is a formal fallacy called "ignoring the issue" We could all win debates if we just ignored our opponents arguments... in our head ;)

I have already responded to your previous post and you have not acknowledged my argument e.g. you argue how one day materialism could prove I am wrong by making conscious AI. I refuted it by saying your argument rests purely on a possibility that may never happen(and also called it ridiculous)

I think you are a bad debater because you don't actually respond to your opponents arguments. You might as well debate with a robot.

A materialist in general believes that human groups and societies are creators and enforcers of ethics and moral laws. They believe that morality is a form of technology (just like airplanes or medicines or money) invented by humans for the purpose of greater cooperative efficacy between individuals in a cooperative group. Like all forms of technology, the moral rules can be objective assessed by how far they are able deliver the things they were invented for namely:-
1) Greater ability to pursue and sustain mutually beneficial cooperative projects.

Therefore materialists provide a clear and rational account of
a) What ethics and morality are (a form of technology)
b) How they arose and why they exist (increasing the scale and benefits of group cooperation)
c) How to assess the various competing versions (how far it delivers on this).

People arguing that things invented by humans are somehow fictions need to take a second look at the enormous causal power if similarly invented concepts like language and word meanings, monetary system and finance, nations states and governments and borders and engineering technologies like ships, planes, internet etc. To a materialist all of these are causally potent emergent structures of matter-energy no different than naturally occurring emergent wholes like stars, planets, cyclones, ecosystems etc. with their own completely novel set of properties, qualities and actions.

To the argument that because they are invented, anybody can do anything...the argument is refuted by showing how language and its invented systems of meaning and grammar works. While there is considerable flexibility and evolution, at each point in time, there are bounds of intelligibility, that cannot be flouted if one wishes to talk to others. Similar is the case for using economic tools or following moral norms. There is nothing worrisome here.

Once again, the question is not whether the account is true or not..that will require evidence based arguments for and against. But it is a rational and cogent account of ethics and morality that is potentially verifiable or falsifiable by further arguments, investigation and observation. I certainly think that there is more to morality than this, but I do not think that the above description suffers from any of the charges the OP asserts.

And here again you have avoided the argument I have made, which has been repeated several times during this thread to this strawman of my position. I never said human cannot make morals or that a materialist cannot have morals, all I said is that because they are based on subjective criteria they cannot generalise to everybody i.e., they lack objectivity. They cannot be enforced on me because they are subjective. Now, other have brought up that they can be enforced by laws, but I have responded to this argument to. I have pointed out three flaws in human imposed morals by laws:



1. It is not necessary I will face the right consequence for breaking them. A fraction of criminals get arrested, a fraction of those get prosecuted and a fraction of them serve the full sentence
2. Not all laws cover every idea of morality e.g. bullying is not covered in most laws.
3. Some laws are themselves considered immoral e.g. slavery laws in the past


While human laws are imperfect and consequences are not always guaranteed, God's law or law of karma is perfect and consequences are always guaranteed. So even if one were to escape human law, which actually happens all the time or if one one be wrongly accused by human laws, which also happens all the time(miscarriage of justices etc) at least one who believes in objective moral law could say "Well, there is always God's law/there is always karma" Even if that is just a belief, it still acts as a deterrent to one who believes it. On the other hand, the only deterrent for a materialist is not getting caught, otherwise they can do whatever they like. I illustrated this in my other thread with the old lady dilemma. If a materialist is guaranteed that by robbing and murdering an old lady they will get away with it, there is nothing really stopping them from doing it, other than mere sentiments "Oh this is wrong" but this is easily dealt with by rationalising or justifying your actions. Criminals do it all the time.[
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
On the other hand, the only deterrent for a materialist is not getting caught, otherwise they can do whatever they like. I illustrated this in my other thread with the old lady dilemma. If a materialist is guaranteed that by robbing and murdering an old lady they will get away with it, there is nothing really stopping them from doing it, other than mere sentiments "Oh this is wrong" but this is easily dealt with by rationalising or justifying your actions. Criminals do it all the time.[

This is so untrue it is pathetic. You seem to keep saying you've done all this research and put all this thought into all of this crap you keep spewing and yet you leave yourself open in such obvious ways. Your little "dilemmas" and theorems are like a bad novel riddled with plot holes.

For example - your "old lady dilemma". How is it that you can completely eliminate empathy? An understanding of what it would be like to experience the trauma your "old lady" is posited to experience. Why wouldn't I kill and old lady when I knew for certain I would get away with it? Because I can imagine what it would be like to be robbed and murdered, and I don't wish that on anyone. That isn't "mere sentiment" by a long shot. It's not rooted in having been told "this is wrong" by any outside party - and, let's face it, is a lot more intelligent a way to present your morality to the world then "I heard it from [X]" - where you can substitute "God" or "my mom" or "Waldo" for the "[X]". By stating that you came to the decision through an empathetic understanding imparts that you have thought about it, you see the value in honoring another's well-being, and you're not just a mindless follower who gets their "rights" and "wrongs" handed out to them like homework assignments to grade-school children.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Has anyone you've talked to literally stated that what you refer to as "the mind" is matter? That is, that "consciousness" is matter? That thoughts are literally material? I highly doubt it. That is because the thing we call consciousness only arises from matter - it is not, itself, matter. It is an ephemeral phenomenon brought to bear by an individual by the accessing of information stores that have been transcribed onto matter (the brain).

Simply saying that it arises from matter does not make it true. You need to show how and why it arises from matter. As I just demonstrated previously atoms only have physical properties, how and why would give rise to mental properties?
Also a materialist onology assumes everything is ultimately matter -- so mind and consciousness would ultimately be something like a certain arrangement of atoms.

It is the difference between the hard-drive in a computer, which stores the information in a physical, material way, and the activity of the central processing unit - by which software interfaces scan the physical storage, and use their algorithms to decipher that information. The process by which the central processing unit and software deciphers the information for general consumption is NOT MATTER. Abstract interpretation of electrical highs and lows in energy streams is NOT MATTER. Are we to say, then, that the machine possesses this same sort of "irreducible" property? Do we call it "mind"? Is the machine "conscious?" If not, then how do you explain this non-material "interpretation" of data and meta-data that goes on inside this PHYSICAL machine? Is this "soul?" What is it? Do you have an answer?

I already answered this argument a few posts back. "Software" is just an abstraction for high and low voltage currents that we make use of. There is no inner and outer awareness in a computer. Like I am aware of my body as something separate from me. The software is not aware of itself as something separate from the hardware -- it is not aware at all.
 
Last edited:

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
For example - your "old lady dilemma". How is it that you can completely eliminate empathy? An understanding of what it would be like to experience the trauma your "old lady" is posited to experience. Why wouldn't I kill and old lady when I knew for certain I would get away with it? Because I can imagine what it would be like to be robbed and murdered, and I don't wish that on anyone. That isn't "mere sentiment" by a long shot. It's not rooted in having been told "this is wrong" by any outside party - and, let's face it, is a lot more intelligent a way to present your morality to the world then "I heard it from [X]" - where you can substitute "God" or "my mom" or "Waldo" for the "[X]". By stating that you came to the decision through an empathetic understanding imparts that you have thought about it, you see the value in honoring another's well-being, and you're not just a mindless follower who gets their "rights" and "wrongs" handed out to them like homework assignments to grade-school children.

But you don't actually experience the pain and suffering of the old lady. If she get robbed and murdered, it is her feeling the pain not you. If empathy was really a deterrent, then nobody would do anything that they would not like done to them to another, but obviously that doesn't stop people from being horrible to one another. We are also selective with this empathy argument e.g. are you vegetarian? If not, then would you like you and yours loved ones to be bred like cattle and then killed for your meat? I didn't think so. What happened to your empathy? Do you think there are some people that deserve pain and suffering? Like say Hitler? Probably, what happened to your empathy?

Is empathy a physical force that stop me from doing something?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I already answered this argument a few posts back. "Software" is just an abstraction for high and low voltage currents that we make use of. There is no inner and outer awareness in a computer. Like I am aware of my body as something separate from me. The software is not aware of itself as something separate from the hardware -- it is not aware at all.
I understand that it isn't "aware" - that was nowhere near my point. My point was ultimately asking how you classify something like the abstracted processing of information when it doesn't concern living bodies, or self-aware, "conscious" beings. Where does the process by which a computer does this interpretation fit in terms of your "irreducible this and that" arguments? What is it if not analogous to the way in which a human brand is interpreted by the "mind"?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
But you don't actually experience the pain and suffering of the old lady. If she get robbed and murdered, it is her feeling the pain not you. If empathy was really a deterrent, then nobody would do anything that they would not like done to them to another, but obviously that doesn't stop people from being horrible to one another. We are also selective with this empathy argument e.g. are you vegetarian? If not, then would you like you and yours loved ones to be bred like cattle and then killed for your meat? I didn't think so. What happened to your empathy? Do you think there are some people that deserve pain and suffering? Like say Hitler? Probably, what happened to your empathy?

Is empathy a physical force that stop me from doing something?
I religion a physical force to stop you from doing something? NO!!! Then it fails (and succeeds) on the same exact principles. Empathy DOES stop many people from doing things. Do you deny this?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I disagree with this. If you need to get somewhere and you are perpetually looking for a map to get to that point, you will never get there. Eventually, we need to settle on a map to take us where we want to go.
Obviously we need to have some framework or model to use, but ultimately a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself. You don't realize Emptiness by a rational process. Right?

I think what it says in my signature line about all the paths up the side of the mountain are just that. There are many paths one can choose to follow. You just have to choose one that works for you. Your path may be the one that works for you, but it may be the path that does not work for another. If you think you have the one true path for everyone, then I'd worry you're not very far up the side of that mountain yet.

If we spend out entire life theorising, we have to eventually agree on a worldview that will bring us practical benefits. I have realised now after 20 years of theorising how little of spirituality theory accounts for, it is 99% practice.
But those 20 years were part of your path. :) And I do agree that the realization of a spiritual life is by actually drinking the water, rather than speculating about its molecular composition.

It is necessary because this is the dominant worldview today and it has lead to a society in spiritual crisis, narcissistic, nihilistic and amoral.
Here's the thing, I've avoided tackling these points individually, but I'll say your attributing PM as the root cause of these things is not very carefully researched and assessed. It's like you've created this boogie man that blame for everything because of something you may have be doing with it. There are plenty of people who are atheists who a deeply spiritual people, while believing the earth is all there is.

The spiritual crisis I believe you are seeing is not PM fault. It's religion's fault! To insist on keeping the conversation about God or a spiritual life thousands of years out of step with a modern society will lead to people in crisis and abandoning for some unknown direction, like neo-atheism for example. I actually believe this move is an act of genuine faith by them in search of some higher truth. And for them having been denied the power of science and reason and rationality embracing PM to help shed some light on their quest is a good thing! It's much better than living in a prerational, mythic system for them on their path of growth.

The spiritual crisis was there before adopting materialism. Can't you agree with that for yourself? What were you before that for yourself? A fundamentalist Christian?

Not to mention new dangers like WMD, destruction of ecosystems etc.
These things are not because of materialism. This has much more to do with modernity and capitalism. Again, your reasoning is not well founded or supported. There are other more viable explanations of causal factors.

The need is for a spiritual alternative, even felt by materialist and atheist philosophers like Sam Harris.
I don't dispute that materialism itself doesn't go far enough, and that's why you see what some call Atheism 2.0, where people are trying to address what is missing. I actually say it like this. So you're an atheist. Now what? We are still human. We do experience what rightly can be called spirituality. But there really isn't a good way to talk about it for many, and so they take path of extreme in rejecting anything or any language that sounds anything like the mythic-literal prerational nonsense they needed to break theselves away from.

Again, as I said, I see this materialism as an important thing for many to do in order to have that "surer footing" as they reach for the sky above. But rather than encouraging them to "keep reaching", you take the approach of smacking a sledge hammer on the pavement they're standing on, and then you cite all manner of unsupported assumptions of its "evil" nature. Hell you may as well say it causes acne in teenagers. :) If anything, it's a symptom of religion's dismal failure. Can you agree with me here?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I think what it says in my signature line about all the paths up the side of the mountain are just that. There are many paths one can choose to follow. You just have to choose one that works for you. Your path may be the one that works for you, but it may be the path that does not work for another. If you think you have the one true path for everyone, then I'd worry you're not very far up the side of that mountain yet.

As long as your path is going up. It is not path if it does not lead to the summit.


Here's the thing, I've avoided tackling these points individually, but I'll say your attributing PM as the root cause of these things is not very carefully researched and assessed. It's like you've created this boogie man that blame for everything because of something you may have be doing with it. There are plenty of people who are atheists who a deeply spiritual people, while believing the earth is all there is.

No, this is a materialist defence and it is not convincing. You are basically denying any ethical and moral connections to PM, when in fact they are implied. It is amoral because it does not believe in any objective moral law and nihilistic because it does not believe in any objective purpose. Therefore, morality and purpose is left to arbitered by the materialist, and this is why the materialist never has any consistent standard of ethic or truth.

The spiritual crisis I believe you are seeing is not PM fault. It's religion's fault! To insist on keeping the conversation about God or a spiritual life thousands of years out of step with a modern society will lead to people in crisis and abandoning for some unknown direction, like neo-atheism for example. I actually believe this move is an act of genuine faith by them in search of some higher truth. And for them having been denied the power of science and reason and rationality embracing PM to help shed some light on their quest is a good thing! It's much better than living in a prerational, mythic system for them on their path of growth.

So I admitted it is better than a prerational system of thought. A fish is better than a bacteria in development, but that does not mean it hasn't got a longer way to go or that we should celebrate the fact that it is a fish --- actually we do the opposite, we throw hooks into its gut and choke it alive.

The spiritual crisis was there before adopting materialism. Can't you agree with that for yourself? What were you before that for yourself? A fundamentalist Christian?

There was definitely another kind of crisis, but not the type of crisis that contemporary philosophers and psychologists have diagnosed about modern Western lifestyles. People are more narcissistic, alienated, individualistic and nihilistic. This was what Nietzsche meant when he said "God is dead" he found himself in a society where people were godless and saw the implications of such a society, thus he tried to come up with a new concept of God, in this case it was man himself becoming God. 20th century philosophy has strongly been concerned with existential questions because of modern Western materialistic way of living that removed meaning and purpose from peoples lives, so nihilism became a very important theme for continental philosophers, particularly existentialist philosophers Kierkegaard, Satre, Camus, Heidegger. In terms of psychologists, the West suffers the highest rate of mental health diseases which are seen as symptomatic of the spiritual crisis. The counter-cultural movements that happened in the West are also indicating of the growing frustration with Western materialism.

Cont.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Narcissism:

The rise of individualism (with its focus on the self and inner feelings) and decline in social norms that accompanied the modernisation of society also meant that the community and the family were no longer able to provide the same support for individuals as they once did. And research has shown that being embedded in social networks – for example, being actively engaged in your community and connected with friends and family – has major health benefits.

As the social fabric deteriorated, it became much harder to meet the basic need for meaningful connection. The question moved from what is best for other people and the family to what is best for me. The modernisation of society seemed to prize fame, wealth, celebrity above all else. All this, combined with the breakdown in social ties created an “empty self, shorn of social meaning”.

Lasch proposes that since World War II, post-war America has produced a personality-type consistent with clinical definitions of "pathological narcissism." This pathology is not akin to everyday narcissism, a hedonistic egoism, but with clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. For Lasch, "pathology represents a heightened version of normality."[3] He locates symptoms of this personality disorder in the radical political movements of the 1960s (such as the Weather Underground), as well as in the spiritual cults and movements of the 1970s, from est to Rolfing.

Narcissism and Modern Culture on JSTOR

Nihilism:

The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). Jacobi used the term to characterize rationalism[14] and in particular Immanuel Kant's "critical" philosophy to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilism—and thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation. Bret W. Davis writes, for example, "The first philosophical development of the idea of nihilism is generally ascribed to Friedrich Jacobi, who in a famous letter criticized Fichte's idealism as falling into nihilism. According to Jacobi, Fichte’s absolutization of the ego (the 'absolute I' that posits the 'not-I') is an inflation of subjectivity that denies the absolute transcendence of God."[15] A related but oppositional concept is fideism, which sees reason as hostile and inferior to faith.

With the popularizing of the word nihilism by Ivan Turgenev, a new Russian political movement called the Nihilist movement adopted the term. They supposedly called themselves nihilists because nothing "that then existed found favor in their eyes

Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who provided a detailed diagnosis of nihilism as a widespread phenomenon of Western culture. Though the notion appears frequently throughout Nietzsche's work, he uses the term in a variety of ways, with different meanings and connotations. Karen Carr describes Nietzsche's characterization of nihilism "as a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate."[24] When we find out that the world does not possess the objective value or meaning that we want it to have or have long since believed it to have, we find ourselves in a crisis.[25]

Nihilism - Wikipedia


Hibbs describes nihilism as a state of spiritual impoverishment in which "there is no higher or lower, in which the higher aspirations that have motivated mankind over the ages lose their attractions for the human soul," and in which "there is no fundamental meaning or ultimate point in human life."

He sees a trend toward such shrunken aspirations in the greater culture reflected in American films, television and music of the past generation. Films once presented evil as a serious threat that was to be overcome by virtue, Hibbs said. But in recent years, provision has rarely been made for the pursuit of justice. Rebellion has been all, he said, and the result has been a void.

"If nothing positive comes out of rebellion, both rebellion and convention seem foolish," he said, "and you're left with snickering irony," a smirking "detachment from everything" a la "Seinfeld" that is the seedbed for cynicism. Evil ceases to be terrifying and becomes merely banal, he said, resulting in a comic view of life as meaningless.

This year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture represented "an unprecedented walk on the dark side for the Academy," Hibbs said, with nominated films dwelling on abortion, capital punishment and a child haunted by the dead, and the winner, "American Beauty," presenting a dark portrait of the American dream as nightmare.

"Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were on the opposite ends of the spectrum regarding God," mused Hibbs, "but both said that without God, anything goes." Take the route of nihilism, he added, again citing Nietzsche, and you choose "not only Jerry Seinfeld - but Columbine."

Nihilism and Popular Culture

Alienation

Many sociologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were concerned about alienating effects of modernization. German sociologists Georg Simmel and Ferdinand Tönnies wrote critical works on individualization and urbanization. Simmel's The Philosophy of Money describes how relationships become more and more mediated by money. Tönnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (Community and Society) is about the loss of primary relationships such as familial bonds in favour of goal-oriented, secondary relationships. This idea of alienation can be observed in some other contexts, although the term may not be as frequently used. In the context of an individual's relationships within society, alienation can mean the unresponsiveness of society as a whole to the individuality of each member of the society. When collective decisions are made, it is usually impossible for the unique needs of each person to be taken into account.

The American sociologist C. Wright Mills conducted a major study of alienation in modern society with White Collar in 1951, describing how modern consumption-capitalism has shaped a society where you have to sell your personality in addition to your work. Melvin Seeman was part of a surge in alienation research during the mid-20th century when he published his paper, "On the Meaning of Alienation", in 1959 (Senekal, 2010b: 7-8). Seeman used the insights of Marx, Emile Durkheim and others to construct what is often considered a model to recognize the five prominent features of alienation: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self-estrangement (Seeman, 1959).[19]Seeman later added a sixth element (cultural estrangement), although this element does not feature prominently in later discussions of his work.

Social alienation - Wikipedia

This is definitely a modern problem not a premodern problem:


If you remove meaning from peoples lives, these are the kind of outcomes.

Cont.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
These things are not because of materialism. This has much more to do with modernity and capitalism. Again, your reasoning is not well founded or supported. There are other more viable explanations of causal factors.

I had to laugh at this. How materialist, atheists and their sympathisers go out their way to deny any connection of certain behaviours to this worldview reminds me very strongly of how Muslims go out of their way to deny any connection of terrorism to their worldview.

Of course modernity and capitalism has to do with materialism. Capitalism is purely driven by materialism and so is communism. In the 20th century the highest amount of mass murders have been committed by people who were avowedly materialistic and atheist, estimates range to about 200 million people were killed. These includes Mao, Stalin, Pot Pot. This is because in their worldview people are not anything more than profits or losses. These are examples of killing their own people.

I don't dispute that materialism itself doesn't go far enough, and that's why you see what some call Atheism 2.0, where people are trying to address what is missing. I actually say it like this. So you're an atheist. Now what? We are still human. We do experience what rightly can be called spirituality. But there really isn't a good way to talk about it for many, and so they take path of extreme in rejecting anything or any language that sounds anything like the mythic-literal prerational nonsense they needed to break theselves away from.

Again you are reminding me of a Muslim apologist. You are trying to cover up the bad members with the moderate members and then denying any connection between the worldview the behaviour of the bad members. Whereas I would argue the bad members are more faithful to the implications of the worldview. PM presents you worldview of reality where there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, justice or destination. Finding yourself in a world that cruel, unfair, uncertain and dangerous, it is hardly surprising that many materialists and atheists become selfish,
narcissistic and hedonistic. I would too if I believed that, and I did at one time, so I know the kind of thoughts I was having and implications of taking these thoughts to their logical conclusion. I diagnosed it was my worldview that was causing the problem, so I rectified it.

Would I go around happy slapping random people on the street? No, because I believe in karma. I know that eventually that will come back to me with interest. Would a materialist, atheist person do it? Maybe.

Again, as I said, I see this materialism as an important thing for many to do in order to have that "surer footing" as they reach for the sky above. But rather than encouraging them to "keep reaching", you take the approach of smacking a sledge hammer on the pavement they're standing on, and then you cite all manner of unsupported assumptions of its "evil" nature. Hell you may as well say it causes acne in teenagers. :) If anything, it's a symptom of religion's dismal failure. Can you agree with me here?

Why should I consider their worldview a virtue? It is better than prerational sentimentality and instinct. Fine. It is still a very underdeveloped intellectual worldview, born out misunderstanding reality.
 
Top