Most of these simply touch a relationship between mind and brain. This would be expected in idealism and dualism as well, so isn't actually a support of Materialism .
-
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!
Any materialists have the support to debate 1:1?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Most of these simply touch a relationship between mind and brain. This would be expected in idealism and dualism as well, so isn't actually a support of Materialism .
Are you... Joking? This is like me being like "nah, Christians don't exist." I mean, it's the "logic" I'd expect but it still blows my mind.
JustWondering
Jerk
A mind separate from the brain should be aware of interference with the body's normal function. However, that's not the case is it? If electrodes were connected to your arm and sent random pulses into it making it twitch against your (the mind's) wishes, the mind is aware of this. When I've gotten drunk, been knocked out (car accident), or medicated, I feel/experience it, my mind does not seem to be separate from the brain at all. How do you explain physical substances and conditions altering how the non-physical mind works/perceives the world? If a conscious mind exists separate from the physical brain than it should be independently aware of interference similar to the arm/electrode example, but that's not how it works.
That actually is how it works in many situations. For example when you self-talk to calm anxiety, use CBT techniques to stave off depression, use self regulation to not scream at your annoying coworker. Plus if the brain is a receiver like a tv or radio, OF COURSE messing with it changes how consciousness comes through. Like I said, this is expected in duakism and Idealism as well and is not evidence for any one of them specifically.
JustWondering
Jerk
Then your claiming there is an unperceived mind separate from the physical mind?
Nope. There is a perceived mind (the only thing we directly perceive actually) and then a world of matter which is not conscious.
JustWondering
Jerk
So you are claiming there is a non-physical mind but it is tied to how the physical brain functions? What evidence to you have to support this belief?
well, materialism is a "faith" since we use non-materialistic concepts as "life" or "purpose".
said that, i'd say that theism ,more than a faith, is a sort of mental laziness, since it deliberately rejects any general criterion of reality when it comes to make general statements about our experience.
so , for example, believing in jesus christ , and not believing in some magical teapot floating in the space at a distance of 97 light-years , or maybe believing that the himalaya is heavier than danny devito and not the reverse... becomes just a matter of personal choice.
said that, i'd say that theism ,more than a faith, is a sort of mental laziness, since it deliberately rejects any general criterion of reality when it comes to make general statements about our experience.
so , for example, believing in jesus christ , and not believing in some magical teapot floating in the space at a distance of 97 light-years , or maybe believing that the himalaya is heavier than danny devito and not the reverse... becomes just a matter of personal choice.
Well oddly, and yet not surprisingly, your lack of remotely understanding what I said made my point perfectly.
Last edited:
To name a few
1. Consciousness has non-physical properties.
2. Consciousness is a certainty that all knowledge of matter relies on.
3. All the proposed evidence for materialism fails to actually suggest or support materialism.
4. There are already non-physical minds like deities and ghosts.
5. There are many nonphysical things like math and logic as well.
6. There is no proposed mechanism by which consciousness arises from matter.
So not a taker for defending materialism in a debate then?
Audie
Veteran Member
Moving the goal post exists
Audie
Veteran Member
Easily destabilized, are we?
People who think math does not exist do not exist.
Your assertion that there are people who think all things are matrrial is fatuous.
Of course, if you run around with goal posts and play equivocation you can work it out.
Go ahead but you can practice your "logic" and your silly snark on someone else.
If you can find someone, that is.
4. lol
6. consciousness doesn't "arise" from matter, as well as "friendship" doesn't "arise" from friends. this is a modern example of what anthropologists have called "magical thinking".
More properly, materialism is the position that physical reality is the most fundamental reality, with all other phenomena arising from it, especially that mind is an epiphenomenon of the physical .
Materialists (who more properly should be called physicalists, since they don't actually consider matter more fundamental than energy, for example) acknowledge the existence of mind and consider it real. Mind is seen as a consequence of matter being arranged properly just as life is.
We all know it is a position.
Perhaps the reason nobody is interested in defending materialism is because you haven't encountered a self-described materialist yet. Theists are continually referring to atheists as materialists, yet few of us take that position. This atheist has explicitly denied it recently in another thread also seeking input from materialists, and also finding nobody claiming to be one. After about eight hours of silence, I posted comment #2 saying that I would address his point despite being agnostic on the matter.
With a lot of therapy and strong drugs, I've learned to cope with that fact.
Theists don't really understand atheists at all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Whoa!! Really? Where did you do that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That does not matter. It still supports materialism so it therefore is evidence for Materialism. You appear to want exclusive evidence, evidence that applies to one line of argument only.
You should have been more specific. Complaining about a lack of exclusive evidence seems rather pointless to me.