Any materialists have the support to debate 1:1?

[qaz]

I think we have more than enough proof that this is the best a Materialist can provide logic wise. Thank you for the contribution.

what logic? do you realize you're claiming that ghosts caused the paleolithic revolution? were you expecting a serious answer?
and what the **** are "life fields"?
please, feel free to link some peer reviewed scientific documentation.

 

[Audie]

I have heard it is not good to feed the trolls

 

[1137]

what logic? do you realize you're claiming that ghosts caused the paleolithic revolution? were you expecting a serious answer?
and what the **** are "life fields"?
please, feel free to link some peer reviewed scientific documentation.

Ghosts... Caused the UPR? Reported for misrepresentation.

 

[qaz]

Ghosts... Caused the UPR? Reported for misrepresentation.

seriously?

4. There are already non-physical minds like deities and ghosts.

4. Really? Proof?

Experience, argumentation like cosmological and teleological and Platonic arguments, scientific evidence like life fields, the Paleolithic Revolution, etc

 

[1137]

seriously?

The UPR is evidence of a deity, yes.

 

[qaz]

The UPR is evidence of a deity, yes.

"evidence" means that you have some scientifc proof, otherwise it's just a faith.
so, please would you link here these scientific studies? thank you very much.

 

[1137]

"evidence" means that you have some scientifc proof, otherwise it's just a faith.
so, please would you link here these scientific studies? thank you very much.

Bar-Yosef, O. (2007). The Archaeological Framework of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Sage Journals. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0392192107076869

Bar-Yosef, O. (2008). On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution [Abstract]. Cambridge Archaeological Journal,8(2), 141-163. doi: On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

Mellars, P. (2006). The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology,14(1), 12-27. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.20037/full

You see, humans existed as a species, physically/biologically, for around 100,000 years without any advances in higher consciousness. We were another animal, very slowly learning to interact with the world we lived in within a purely animalistic/survivalist mindset. Then, rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly lept forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire human species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event.

 

[qaz]

Bar-Yosef, O. (2007). The Archaeological Framework of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Sage Journals. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0392192107076869

Bar-Yosef, O. (2008). On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution [Abstract]. Cambridge Archaeological Journal,8(2), 141-163. doi: On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

Mellars, P. (2006). The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology,14(1), 12-27. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.20037/full

You see, humans existed as a species, physically/biologically, for around 100,000 years without any advances in higher consciousness. We were another animal, very slowly learning to interact with the world we lived in within a purely animalistic/survivalist mindset. Then, rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly lept forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire human species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event.

none of these articles suggests the most remote hyopothesis that the improvements during the paleolithic era would represent an evidence of a deity or ghosts.

 

[1137]

none of these articles suggests the most remote hyopothesis that the improvements during the paleolithic era would represent an evidence of a deity or ghosts.

Again another great refutation, very thorough and will vited.

 

[Audie]

none of these articles suggests the most remote hyopothesis that the improvements during the paleolithic era would represent an evidence of a deity or ghosts.

It is the same as what creationists do, cite a
bibliography of unread papers from some site
that supplies them in bulk , and then announce they
support some wholly unwarranted conclusion.

And often enough, as in this instance, toss in
some strawmen (see the garbage about "magically").

This makes them look clever, posts them on the
Intellectual highground and makes the ( non-
existent of course, but hey- ) advocates of magic leaps
look sooo silly.

 

[qaz]

Again another great refutation, very thorough and will vited.

so, it turns out there is no evidence.
i can't decide if you mystify scholars' work willingly or at a preconscious level.

 

[Audie]

so, it turns out there is no evidence.
i can't decide if you mystify scholars' work willingly or at a preconscious level.

It isnt just scholars' work that goes
thro' the converterbetween the ears.

Somewhere between reality and what
comes back out is the hallucinatoty notion
that there are "materialists" identified by
a belief that only material things exist.

If one cant get him to understand
something so simple, it is inesensible
to try to sort out what happened in human
consciousness 100,000 yrs ago.

 

[qaz]

what happened in human
consciousness 100,000 yrs ago.

which is actually much more "spiritual" and moving than their juvenile, kitsch superstitions.

 

[1137]

so, it turns out there is no evidence.
i can't decide if you mystify scholars' work willingly or at a preconscious level.

There's evidence you didn't bother to refute in any way shape or form. You're welcome to try again though.

It isnt just scholars' work that goes
thro' the converterbetween the ears.

Somewhere between reality and what
comes back out is the hallucinatoty notion
that there are "materialists" identified by
a belief that only material things exist.

If one cant get him to understand
something so simple, it is inesensible
to try to sort out what happened in human
consciousness 100,000 yrs ago.

You're literally debating one here! You we literally shown a thread full of these people! Do you know what it's called when you choose your faith over proof? Like get real.

 

[Milton Platt]

What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it!

consciousness can be studied in the laboratory. It can be altered an even terminated in the laboratory. Of course, someone has to be conscious to examine consciousness, why does that matter?

 

[1137]

consciousness can be studied in the laboratory. It can be altered an even terminated in the laboratory. Of course, someone has to be conscious to examine consciousness, why does that matter?

Incorrect. We actually cannot access the consciousness of anyone directly. We don't study it in labs, that stuff mostly just looks at the correlated brain activity, like in an fMRI. That we can alter it or damage the receiver is also expected in Dualism and idealism so not evidence for materialism.

The axiom of consciousness is a problem because we can't reject something that certainly exists in favor of something that doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isnt just scholars' work that goes
thro' the converterbetween the ears.

Somewhere between reality and what
comes back out is the hallucinatoty notion
that there are "materialists" identified by
a belief that only material things exist.

If one cant get him to understand
something so simple, it is inesensible
to try to sort out what happened in human
consciousness 100,000 yrs ago.

If this is in regards to a supposed blooming of artistic ability in humans that date has been moved back as new discoveries come in. This is fairly recent:

Colored Pigments and Complex Tools Suggest Humans Were Trading 100,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Believed | Science | Smithsonian

"These black- and red-colored pigments reveal that humans were using pigments, potentially to communicate status or identity, by around 300,000 years ago. "

Like our physical traits it appears that evolution of culture was a slow steady process.

 

[Milton Platt]

Incorrect. We actually cannot access the consciousness of anyone directly. We don't study it in labs, that stuff mostly just looks at the correlated brain activity, like in an fMRI. That we can alter it or damage the receiver is also expected in Dualism and idealism so not evidence for materialism.

The axiom of consciousness is a problem because we can't reject something that certainly exists in favor of something that doesn't.

insofar as the consciousness goes, there is nothing to indicate that it does not originate in the brain as a result of electrical and chemical signals, so in that regard, we can study what causes the phenomenon we label as consciousness. There is nothing to indicate that there is a consciousness apart from what is caused by these biological things.
I have no idea what your quoted axiom has to do with studying anything.
The Axiom of Consciousness states that consciousness exists--in particular, that any assertion pertaining to reality implies the existence of a conscious entity making that assertion.
In what way does that prevent study of it?

 

[1137]

insofar as the consciousness goes, there is nothing to indicate that it does not originate in the brain as a result of electrical and chemical signals, so in that regard, we can study what causes the phenomenon we label as consciousness. There is nothing to indicate that there is a consciousness apart from what is caused by these biological things.
I have no idea what your quoted axiom has to do with studying anything.
The Axiom of Consciousness states that consciousness exists--in particular, that any assertion pertaining to reality implies the existence of a conscious entity making that assertion.
In what way does that prevent study of it?

... You can't come to understand on your own why something axiomatic cannot reduce to something not axiomatic? Have you ever heard the term "paradox?"

 

[Phantasman]

And maybe those few hypothetical persons
who have so little ability to think as to say
that material things are all that exist- if they even
exist, they are not here, and why talk about them?

Why notva thread on people who believe their cat
is a space alien? There reallt are people like that.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.