Any Defenses of Materialism?

[atanu]

A certain subclass of brain events is consciousness. These consciousness events do cause chain reactions on other events in the brain creating the physical states associated with meditation.

I wonder whether your claims are not results of chain reactions of sub sub class of brain events, absolutely lacking the basis for determining the truth position of a proposition.

How can the so called understanding arisen of a process control and know the process?

What you say merely flows from your axiom that chemicals/brain events cause consciousness. You refuse to even consider the proposition that mind states control what brain chemicals make us feel.

There are published records that meditators can consciously activate different brain areas.

 

[atanu]

You can reject the law of identity for all I care, but you better show how it is incorrect. In this case you need to show a single thing that can be known free of the Self.

Exactly.

A denial of self proves self. A denial of consciousness proves consciousness. Self and consciousness are not two.

 

[sayak83]

This didn't answer the question at all. Why are therapists not trained to talk to patients in physiological terms? Why are things like meditation and self talk recommended, rather than visualizing physiological changes?



I didn't see a refutation of solipsism, perhaps you can bold it?



I did refute it, unless you think my face is generated by my mirror?



You can reject the law of identity for all I care, but you better show how it is incorrect. In this case you need to show a single thing that can be known free of the Self.

I asked for a clarification of what exactly was the item A and what exactly was the item B on your mirror and face example. You never replied.

They ought to be, just as the training is gym ought to be backed up by actual science of cardio-vascular health. The fact that therapy is not usually backed up by such things is the reason why its only moderately effective, like all pre-scientific forms of knowledge.

A solipsistic viewpoint is quite compatible with a materialistic paradigm. Its simply a stance where one chooses to only take the conscious field as is and refuse to make any further ontological commitments beyond that. That is perfectly fine.

What the law of identity has to do with self-consiousness I have no idea.

 

[sayak83]

Exactly.

A denial of self proves self. A denial of consciousness proves consciousness. Self and consciousness are not two.

Show that presence of consciousness makes the presence of a real substantial self a logical corollary.

 

[sayak83]

I wonder whether your claims are not results of chain reactions of sub sub class of brain events, absolutely lacking the basis for determining the truth position of a proposition.

They obviously are results of multiple chain reactions of sub sub class brain event. This has no impact whatsoever regarding whether the claims are true or not.

How can the so called understanding arisen of a process control and know the process?

Through self-representation. That's what brain does. It represents other things (parts of the body, parts of the environment, parts of its own process). This representation of parts of itself as it acts is the self-consciousness.

What you say merely flows from your axiom that chemicals/brain events cause consciousness. You refuse to even consider the proposition that mind states control what brain chemicals make us feel.

I consider dualism to be a unstable stance. Either go for idealism or materialism. After all the chair I am seeing from inside my field of consciousness is ALSO a mental entity and I am assuming that there exists an analogous "object" that that mental entity represents outside of this field. Either do this consistently (hence get brain states as the objects that the mental states of my mind represents) or don't do this at all and go for idealism. Doing for some things in my conscious field and not for other things in the same field makes no sense.

There are published records that meditators can consciously activate different brain areas.

Again, consciousness is a class of brain events. Brain events activating brain events is not that surprising.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course.

This might help explain the unwarranted vehemence against those that report positive psi research. My opinion is they are legitimate scientists investigating legitimate questions.

It has to be published in a prestigious scientific journal though.

First, reality does not change based on what gets published. But secondly people often don't know that psi papers get published all the time in scientific journals Psi Papers

Basically I see no valid reason to dismiss Dr. Gary Schwartz's triple blind tests of alleged gifted mediums. That is just one of a dozen things along with millions of anecdotal events that convinced me that materialism fails to understand consciousness.

 

[atanu]

They obviously are results of multiple chain reactions of sub sub class brain event. This has no impact whatsoever regarding whether the claims are true or not.

Through self-representation. That's what brain does. It represents other things (parts of the body, parts of the environment, parts of its own process). This representation of parts of itself as it acts is the self-consciousness.

I consider dualism to be a unstable stance. Either go for idealism or materialism. After all the chair I am seeing from inside my field of consciousness is ALSO a mental entity and I am assuming that there exists an analogous "object" that that mental entity represents outside of this field. Either do this consistently (hence get brain states as the objects that the mental states of my mind represents) or don't do this at all and go for idealism. Doing for some things in my conscious field and not for other things in the same field makes no sense.

Again, consciousness is a class of brain events. Brain events activating brain events is not that surprising.

You are repeating the same argument again and again, ignoring the fact that an effect has no real power to change its cause.

If our intelligence is an effect it cannot influence the material state for worse or for better and it has no power of determining objective truth.

Regarding your point about dualism and idealism, I partly agree, pointing out however that you do not know or understand my position.

To posit a materialism against idealism or to posit a monism against a dualism is DUALISM. Do you get it?

 

[atanu]

Show that presence of consciousness makes the presence of a real substantial self a logical corollary.

Your question proves that. A conscious self asked a question.

Or did a brain ask it?
..

 

[1137]

I asked for a clarification of what exactly was the item A and what exactly was the item B on your mirror and face example. You never replied.

They ought to be, just as the training is gym ought to be backed up by actual science of cardio-vascular health. The fact that therapy is not usually backed up by such things is the reason why its only moderately effective, like all pre-scientific forms of knowledge.

A solipsistic viewpoint is quite compatible with a materialistic paradigm. Its simply a stance where one chooses to only take the conscious field as is and refuse to make any further ontological commitments beyond that. That is perfectly fine.

What the law of identity has to do with self-consiousness I have no idea.

It's an axiom. You reject axioms.

 

[sayak83]

Your question proves that. A conscious self asked a question.

Or did an unconscious brain ask it?
..

That sometimes a self appears in the consciousness is not a problem. The assertion that it always exists is the controversy. I am not always talking and asking questions.

 

[sayak83]

It's an axiom. You reject axioms.

Law of identity is an axiom. Self consciusness is not.

 

[1137]

I asked for a clarification of what exactly was the item A and what exactly was the item B on your mirror and face example. You never replied.

Because as far as I can tell you're nothing but a troll. The example was obvious, where if A is my face and B is an image of my face, thus "proving" in your "logic" that my face arises from images of it.

They ought to be, just as the training is gym ought to be backed up by actual science of cardio-vascular health. The fact that therapy is not usually backed up by such things is the reason why its only moderately effective, like all pre-scientific forms of knowledge.

Haha, now psychology is ineffective and primitive. Whatever.

A solipsistic viewpoint is quite compatible with a materialistic paradigm. Its simply a stance where one chooses to only take the conscious field as is and refuse to make any further ontological commitments beyond that. That is perfectly fine.

You're obviously unaware of what solipsism is, that we can only know our own mind directly. Then again, you reject this axiomatic fact without any support of your rejection, so why should I bother...

What the law of identity has to do with self-consiousness I have no idea.

Because if you reject one axiom you may as well reject them all, right? Good luck arguing your refutation.

 

[1137]

Law of identity is an axiom. Self consciusness is not.

Then you're able to show you know something free of your mind! We all await your evidence.

 

[sayak83]

You are repeating the same argument again and again, ignoring the fact that an effect has no real power to change its cause.

If our intelligence is an effect it cannot influence the material state for worse or for better and it has no power of determining objective truth.

Regarding your point about dualism and idealism, I partly agree, pointing out however that you do not know or understand my position.

To posit a materialism against idealism or to posit a monism against a dualism is DUALISM. Do you get it?

I am arguing for identity/equivalency, NOT cause-effect. Mental states are identical with/equivalent to certain class of brain processes. There is no cause-effect relation here. From the very beginning that is argument I have been making.

 

[1137]

I am arguing for identity/equivalency, NOT cause-effect. Mental states are identical with/equivalent to certain class of brain processes. There is no cause-effect relation here. From the very beginning that is argument I have been making.

Right. So you can know your mind and matter only through it, but we should accept matter and reject the mind as something fantastical or an improper description. You ignore and continue to ignore this problem, the mereological fallacy, the fact that the mind and body have different properties, etc and so on. And you know what? You'll continue to ignore them, because you've accepted the newest religion of western culture!

 

[sayak83]

Because as far as I can tell you're nothing but a troll. The example was obvious, where if A is my face and B is an image of my face, thus "proving" in your "logic" that my face arises from images of it.[/cool]

That does not work. Whenever If I have a face then there is an image of my face is obviously false. Try again?

Haha, now psychology is ineffective and primitive. Whatever.

Its obviously primitive. Not really quantitative, nor very scientific yet. How is quantitative success in therapy measured? How is that success compared to say medicine in case of bodily disease. How effective is therapy at all? I wonder.

You're obviously unaware of what solipsism is, that we can only know our own mind directly. Then again, you reject this axiomatic fact without any support of your rejection, so why should I bother...

No, I completely accept that I can only know my mind. Materialism begins by indirectly inferring the tentative existence of things outside the mind based on regularities observed in the objects found in the mind. Solipsists choose not to make this inference.

Because if you reject one axiom you may as well reject them all, right? Good luck arguing your refutation.

Show me a logic text book that says self-consciousness is an axiom of logic. Thanks.

 

[atanu]

I understand

I am arguing for identity/equivalency, NOT cause-effect. Mental states are identical with/equivalent to certain class of brain processes. There is no cause-effect relation here. From the very beginning that is argument I have been making.

I understand your argument. You are sublating the seer by the seen. Or you are superimposing seen upon the seer and conflating the two.

As we had earlier shown, you are taking the image upon the mirror as the real and forgetting the seer of that image.The seer cannot be seen except through a mirror, but seeing the image proves the seer.

This is the very basic contribution of Vedata to the understanding of cognition, called Bimba-Pratibimba effect.

 

[sayak83]

I understand


I understand your argument. You are sublating the seer by the seen. Or you are superimposing seen upon the seer and conflating the two.

As we had earlier shown, you are taking the image upon the mirror as the real and forgetting the seer of that image.The seer cannot be seen except through a mirror, but seeing the image proves the seer.

This is the very basic contribution of Vedata to the understanding of cognition, called Bimba-Pratibimba effect.

Put yourself in a dark corner and the mirror in bright light. Now look at the mirror....no image of you there now..

If the seer could be seen, how would you recognize him?

 

[sayak83]

Right. So you can know your mind and matter only through it, but we should accept matter and reject the mind as something fantastical or an improper description. You ignore and continue to ignore this problem, the mereological fallacy, the fact that the mind and body have different properties, etc and so on. And you know what? You'll continue to ignore them, because you've accepted the newest religion of western culture!

It is impossible to know of they have different properties because the properties of the neural correlated events are not well know and the property of mind states have proven difficult to explicitly articulate. So..

 

[1137]

That does not work. Whenever If I have a face then there is an image of my face is obviously false. Try again?

And a straw man, what did I expect?

Its obviously primitive. Not really quantitative, nor very scientific yet. How is quantitative success in therapy measured? How is that success compared to say medicine in case of bodily disease. How effective is therapy at all? I wonder.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/research-methods.html

No, I completely accept that I can only know my mind. Materialism begins by indirectly inferring the tentative existence of things outside the mind based on regularities observed in the objects found in the mind. Solipsists choose not to make this inference.

Ah, so it's a guess based on what you think to be true. I applaud you for finally admitting it!

Show me a logic text book that says self-consciousness is an axiom of logic. Thanks.

Does it need to be in one? An axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. It is self evidently true that "I exist". An example of an axiom is A being A, which is axiomatic because it cannot be argued against. There is no situation in which A is non A, and to argue for A as Non A would still rely on the axiom. The same is true of arguing "I do not exist". Who is doing the denying? How can you understand anything at all free of yourself? As with A is A, I'll ask you one final time to show an example of "I exist" being false.