Any Defenses of Materialism?

[1137]

It may not be what you intend, but it's the inescapable implication.

Anything that served as evidence of the existence of the "immaterial" would also serve as evidence that materialism was false.

When you say that materialism is unfalsifiable, you imply that there's no evidence whatsoever for the immaterial.

Why would evidence of the immaterial suggest the material?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would evidence of the immaterial suggest the material?

Try reading it again. If anything material was shown to exist, then materialism would be shown to be false.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Try reading it again. If anything material was shown to exist, then materialism would be shown to be false.

Did you mean to type "if anything immaterial..."

Because if not I R confuse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you mean to type "if anything immaterial..."

Because if not I R confuse.

Yeah - sorry.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yeah - sorry.

Not sure if I agree. Exist is a tricky word, as is material.

I'm not sure anyone involved here has agreed to a definition of material, which is partially why this thread is such a dumpster fire.

 

[1137]

Try reading it again. If anything material was shown to exist, then materialism would be shown to be false.

I misread, you misspoke, now we're even haha. So the existence of the mind disproves materialism, or can you see/hold a mind?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure if I agree. Exist is a tricky word, as is material.

I'm not sure anyone involved here has agreed to a definition of material, which is partially why this thread is such a dumpster fire.

This is a different question. But wherever a person draws their line for "the material", if they say that nothing exists beyond that line, a single thing beyond that line would prove them wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I misread, you misspoke, now we're even haha. So the existence of the mind disproves materialism, or can you see/hold a mind?

I don't see why the existence of the mind would disprove materialism.

All the evidence we have indicates that "the mind" is just "what the brain does". Even if this weren't the case, though, so what?

You don't need to see or hold something for it to have a material basis. Can you see or hold a neutrino? A gravitational field? The colour blue? The 1929 stock market crash?

Not every noun describes a physical object. Not every physical object is tactile or visible to us. None of this negates materialism.

 

[1137]

I don't see why the existence of the mind would disprove materialism.

All the evidence we have indicates that "the mind" is just "what the brain does". Even if this weren't the case, though, so what?

You don't need to see or hold something for it to have a material basis. Can you see or hold a neutrino? A gravitational field? The colour blue? The 1929 stock market crash?

Not every noun describes a physical object. Not every physical object is tactile or visible to us. None of this negates materialism.

We are on page 12 and have yet to show reductionism is the path to take. In fact, this thread is a testament to the absurdity of materialism. So to answer the question by assuming reductionism is less than convincing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are on page 12 and have yet to show reductionism is the path to take. In fact, this thread is a testament to the absurdity of materialism. So to answer the question by assuming reductionism is less than convincing.

Exactly how do you think I've "assumed reductionism"?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is a different question. But wherever a person draws their line for "the material", if they say that nothing exists beyond that line, a single thing beyond that line would prove them wrong.

Unless of course the definition of exists outreaches the definition of material. Does a thought exist? Even if it is only an emergent property of material, is it material?

 

[George-ananda]

That's because such experiments don't utilize necessary controls, aren't well designed, fail to actually measure or define in general how one might measure that which they seek to demonstrate exist, and in general "do not require equipment", experimental methods, analyses, or approaches that are within the sciences or within the scope of the informed layperson familiar with scientific research in a relevant domain.

Parapsychologists such as Dr. Dean Radin and others would beg to differ with you about the quality of the well-controlled experimental methods currently used. As for your other comments, the experiments I am referring to are only intending to show by odds against chance,the failure of conventional materialist explanations to account for the results. They are for the most part not intended to show or prove the mechanism. My point was that Dr. Gary Schwartz's can triple-blind test mediums and show amazing odds against chance results with the no sophisticated science or equipment. In triple-blind studies with mediums it is not that hard to eliminate all possibility for hot and cold reading being the explanation for the tremendous odds against chance.

Step 1 per Dean Radin and others was showing phenomena that have no currently accepted explanation.

Step 2 would be constructing theories and finding ways to test for them. That is in process.

Radin and others say step 1 is done and we are at step 2 with certain phenomena. I am defending parapsychologists from the claim that Step 1 has not been accomplished. Step 2 is where what you are talking about comes more into play.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

We are on page 12 and have yet to show reductionism is the path to take. In fact, this thread is a testament to the absurdity of materialism. So to answer the question by assuming reductionism is less than convincing.

I'm not convinced that you are clear about what you are trying to argue against. Can you provide the definition of materialism you are using?

 

[1137]

Exactly how do you think I've "assumed reductionism"?

When you say "All the evidence we have indicates that "the mind" is just "what the brain does". If your claim was true it would be different, but this thread has brought forth the serious flaws in the so called evidence. At best we have evidence of correlation between brain states and conscious states.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Parapsychologists such as Dr. Dean Radin and others would beg to differ with you about the quality of the well-controlled experimental methods currently used. As for your other comments, the experiments I am referring to are only intending to show by odds against chance,the failure of conventional materialist explanations to account for the results. They are for the most part not intended to show or prove the mechanism. My point was that Dr. Gary Schwartz's can triple-blind test mediums and show amazing odds against chance results with the no sophisticated science or equipment. In triple-blind studies with mediums it is not that hard to eliminate all possibility for hot and cold reading being the explanation for the tremendous odds against chance.

Step 1 per Dean Radin and others was showing phenomena that have no currently accepted explanation.

Step 2 would be constructing theories and finding ways to test for them. That is in process.

Radin and others say step 1 is done and we are at step 2 with certain phenomena. I am defending parapsychologists from the claim that Step 1 has not been accomplished. Step 2 is where what you are talking about comes more into play.

First, psychology isn't even science, nevermind parapsychology, so there's that. This study might as well be being conducted by plumbers for all the credibility being a 'parapsychologist' gives them.

Second, your step one has not been accomplished, all you have is heresay.

Third, people have been trying to test for this forever, and so far they(collectively, everyone who has ever tried) have produced only negative results.

 

[1137]

I'm not convinced that you are clear about what you are trying to argue against. Can you provide the definition of materialism you are using?

That matter is all that exists, it makes up everything, and everything can be reduced to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

 

[1137]

First, psychology isn't even science, nevermind parapsychology, so there's that. This study might as well be being conducted by plumbers for all the credibility being a 'parapsychologist' gives them.

Second, your step one has not been accomplished, all you have is heresay.

Third, people have been trying to test for this forever, and so far they(collectively, everyone who has ever tried) have produced only negative results.

How is psychology not a science? It effectively employees the scientific method and has given us much data on things like education, development, trauma, etc. This claim that psychology is not a science is almost a tin foil hat line of thought. Simply because it questions a preassumed, widely accepted theory like materialism it is still a science.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That matter is all that exists, it makes up everything, and everything can be reduced to it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

That isn't what that definition says at all.

 

[George-ananda]

First, psychology isn't even science, nevermind parapsychology, so there's that. This study might as well be being conducted by plumbers for all the credibility being a 'parapsychologist' gives them.

Second, your step one has not been accomplished, all you have is heresay.

Third, people have been trying to test for this forever, and so far they(collectively, everyone who has ever tried) have produced only negative results.

For parapsychology to move forward (per Dean Radin, Charles Tart and many others), it has to move past giving undue attention to untrue perpetual mantras like the above. Like evolution, there are some people just psychologically opposed to certain things and the rest of us need to move on and leave them behind.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

How is psychology not a science? It effectively employees the scientific method and has given us much data on things like education, development, trauma, etc. This claim that psychology is not a science is almost a tin foil hat line of thought. Simply because it questions a preassumed, widely accepted theory like materialism it is still a science.

It's based on the DSM, which contains 'conditions' that are decided not by science, but by a panel of 'psychiatrists/psychologists'. I see it as closer to religion than science personally, but that's a matter for another time.

Surely you can at least agree that 'parapsychologists' arent doing science.