Any materialists have the support to debate 1:1?

[Phantasman]

Until there is credible evidence presented to the contrary I'll continue believing consciousness occurs through the functioning of the brain, a physical organ.

Actually. that's true, but not the point. Every human dies from one thing, lack of blood to the brain. But once the brain dies, is there a subconscious that still exists. This is where the spirit exists. The spirit is fed from the spiritual and from the physical (senses) by consciousness. Once the subconscious mind receives nothing from conscious, what's left is only spirit. If one doesn't understand spirit, they only see conscious (physical, 5 senses).

Those who study and understand the spiritual part of the mind, can see it's existence. Those who don't care, won't.

An idea comes from the subconscious. No one takes you aside as a little kid and says "let me teach you how to lie". It comes from sources higher yet not seen, unless you learn to see them. And it's not with eyes.

Just my (founded) belief.

 

[Phantasman]

Such as?

Emotions.

 

[Axe Elf]

2+2, isn’t. 10x10, isn’t. Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII, isnt.

This thread has kinda gotten away from me since I confused you here, but to set the record straight...

2+2 isn't a fact; neither is 10x10.

2+2=4 and 10x10=100 are facts that are based on faith in the axioms of mathematics.

"Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII" is a fact that is based on faith in the testimony of others (unless you were there to personally witness the surrender of Germany and Japan at the end of WWII, in which case it becomes a fact that is based on faith in the existence of a "real world" outside of your own head, and that at least some of your perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality).

 

[1137]

This thread has kinda gotten away from me since I confused you here, but to set the record straight...

2+2 isn't a fact; neither is 10x10.

2+2=4 and 10x10=100 are facts that are based on faith in the axioms of mathematics.

"Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII" is a fact that is based on faith in the testimony of others (unless you were there to personally witness the surrender of Germany and Japan at the end of WWII, in which case it becomes a fact that is based on faith in the existence of a "real world" outside of your own head, and that at least some of your perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality).

Lol "the faith in mathematics," wut?

 

[Polymath257]

This thread has kinda gotten away from me since I confused you here, but to set the record straight...

2+2 isn't a fact; neither is 10x10.

2+2=4 and 10x10=100 are facts that are based on faith in the axioms of mathematics.

No need for faith. Just use the axioms and rules of deduction.

 

[Axe Elf]

Lol "the faith in mathematics," wut?

Just use the axioms and rules of deduction.

There you go, 1137, as Polymath points out, the faith is not in mathematics, per se, but in the faith statements (axioms) that underlie mathematics. Once you have faith in those, then you can "prove" things like 2+2=4 and 10x10=100.

 

[Polymath257]

There you go, 1137, as Polymath points out, the faith is not in mathematics, per se, but in the faith statements (axioms) that underlie mathematics. Once you have faith in those, then you can "prove" things like 2+2=4 and 10x10=100.

No more faith is required than there is for the rules of chess while playing chess.

 

[Axe Elf]

No more faith is required than there is for the rules of chess while playing chess.

Correct. The rules of chess are also axiomatic (faith statements). There's no particular reason (or proof) for a pawn to move only forward and capture only diagonally forward; it's just how their movement is defined. Take it on faith, and you can play chess.

 

[1137]

There you go, 1137, as Polymath points out, the faith is not in mathematics, per se, but in the faith statements (axioms) that underlie mathematics. Once you have faith in those, then you can "prove" things like 2+2=4 and 10x10=100.

So you think that before we had axioms or even life, the number of electrons in a hydrogen atom was completely nonstable, random, and unknowable? How do people come up with such worldview?!

 

[JustWondering]

Actually. that's true, but not the point. Every human dies from one thing, lack of blood to the brain. But once the brain dies, is there a subconscious that still exists. This is where the spirit exists. The spirit is fed from the spiritual and from the physical (senses) by consciousness. Once the subconscious mind receives nothing from conscious, what's left is only spirit. If one doesn't understand spirit, they only see conscious (physical, 5 senses).

Those who study and understand the spiritual part of the mind, can see it's existence. Those who don't care, won't.

An idea comes from the subconscious. No one takes you aside as a little kid and says "let me teach you how to lie". It comes from sources higher yet not seen, unless you learn to see them. And it's not with eyes.

Just my (founded) belief.

That's nice but do you have anything to back any of this up? Is there more to your beliefs than simply your desire to believe it?

 

[Axe Elf]

So you think that before we had axioms or even life, the number of electrons in a hydrogen atom was completely nonstable, random, and unknowable? How do people come up with such worldview?!

What we can or cannot know has nothing to do with what is.

The number of electrons in a hydrogen atom is still unknowable without faith in a "real world" that exists outside of our own heads, and faith that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

 

[JustWondering]

Emotions.

Originate through the functioning of the physical brain until evidence can be presented to the contrary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What we can or cannot know has nothing to do with what is.

The number of electrons in a hydrogen atom is still unknowable without faith in a "real world" that exists outside of our own heads, and faith that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

Some people think that justified belief and unjustified belief are different things that should not be conflated, nor called the same thing

Others prefer that they be considered the same thing. Bill Maher expressed this well somewhat snarkily:

"We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord."
​

To avoid that ambiguity (equivocation), I've given up using the word faith when I mean justified belief, as in faith that my car will start alike it did the last 200 times it was turned over. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but as a separate definition from unjustified belief, and definitely not the same thing

 

[Axe Elf]

Some people think that justified belief and unjustified belief are different things that should not be conflated or called the same thing

Others prefer that they be considered the same thing. Bill Maher expressed this well somewhat snarkily:

"We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord."
​

To avoid that ambiguity (equivocation), I've given up using the word faith when I mean justified belief, as in faith that my car will start alike it did the last 200 times it was turned over. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but as a separate definition from unjustified belief

Those kinds of judgements (like whether or not a statement/claim/belief is justified or not) come later, and often depend on the sort of thing in which one has had faith in the first place. But before anyone can know anything at all about a possible "real world" outside of their own heads, they have to have faith in one of three things:

1) Faith that a "real world" outside of their own heads exists, and that at least some of their perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.
2) Faith in the testimony of others regarding their own experiences.
3) Faith in the axioms of a formal system of reasoning.

Certainly faith can be misplaced, leading to unjustified conclusions/beliefs, but faith in one of those three things is prerequisite to make any statement about reality at all.

 

[1137]

What we can or cannot know has nothing to do with what is.

The number of electrons in a hydrogen atom is still unknowable without faith in a "real world" that exists outside of our own heads, and faith that at least some of our perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

So you're a solipsist?

 

[Axe Elf]

So you're a solipsist?

Not at all. I have faith that a "real world" exists outside of my own head, and that at least some of my perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Those kinds of judgements (like whether or not a statement/claim/belief is justified or not) come later, and often depend on the sort of thing in which one has had faith in the first place. But before anyone can know anything at all about a possible "real world" outside of their own heads, they have to have faith in one of three things:

1) Faith that a "real world" outside of their own heads exists, and that at least some of their perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.
2) Faith in the testimony of others regarding their own experiences.
3) Faith in the axioms of a formal system of reasoning.

Certainly faith can be misplaced, leading to unjustified conclusions/beliefs, but faith in one of those three things is prerequisite to make any statement about reality at all.

I don't think that I need to have unjustified belief in any of those things. My belief that there is an outside world is an irresistible intuition, but I am justified in believing that it is there, or that assuming that it does is a good plan. It's based on the evidence that making that assumption has been profitable. What more do I need to support that belief and call it justified. Assuming that others are conscious and have experiences is also a justified belief, as is using formal systems to my advantage.

It's all about what works. If an idea works - if it explains a portion of reality and helps me anticipate.some aspect of it, the idea is a keeper, meaning justified. I like this anonymous Internet persona's take on the matter:

"All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue."
​

Notice that even if we knew that the outer world was an illusion - some sort of matrix or vat-in-a-brain scenario - nothing would change. We would expect to be subjected to all of the same rules that existed before we knew that. What should you and I be doing differently if we knew that there was no external reality, or that the one we think is there is not? Nothing that I can tell.

So what faith do we need that it is there? Why would we care either way? Sure, we'd be shocked, but then what? It would be life as usual as the guy above describes it. Pouring a glass of water and drinking it would presumably still relive thirst even we knew that there was really no water out there, or that we didn't really have a physical body.

My beliefs are all justified by prior experience as far as I know. I have no use for unjustified beliefs.

 

[1137]

Not at all. I have faith that a "real world" exists outside of my own head, and that at least some of my perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality.

Faith but no evidence?

 

[Axe Elf]

I don't think that I need to have unjustified belief in any of those things. My belief that there is an outside world is an irresistible intuition, but I am justified in believing that it is there, or that assuming that it does is a good plan. It's based on the evidence that making that assumption has been profitable. What more do I need to support that belief and call it justified. Assuming that others are conscious and have experiences is also a justified belief, as is using formal systems to my advantage.

It's all about what works. If an idea works - if it explains a portion of reality and helps me anticipate.some aspect of it, the idea is a keeper, meaning justified. I like this anonymous Internet persona's take on the matter:

"All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue."
​

Notice that even if we knew that the outer world was an illusion - some sort of matrix or vat-in-a-brain scenario - nothing would change. We would expect to be subjected to all of the same rules that existed before we knew that. What should you and I be doing differently if we knew that there was no external reality, or that the one we think is there is not? Nothing that I can tell.

So what faith do we need that it is there? Why would we care either way? Sure, we'd be shocked, but then what? It would be life as usual as the guy above describes it. Pouring a glass of water and drinking it would presumably still relive thirst even we knew that there was really no water out there, or that we didn't really have a physical body.

My beliefs are all justified by prior experience as far as I know. I have no use for unjustified beliefs.

You haven't added substantively to what I addressed in my previous post--to the extent that your faith (that at least some of your perceptions and sensations are reflective of a "real world" that exists outside of your own head) "works" for you, then that faith is justified; to the extent that your faith in those perceptions does not "work" (i.e., you fall victim to an optical illusion), then that faith is not justified--but the facts you have determined from your faith are still based in that faith.

To the extent that we ARE actually brains in a vat being stimulated by electrodes, then, as you say, life goes on pretty much as it does now--but you are no longer asserting anything about the real world (what we would normally consider to be a "fact"); you are merely asserting things about your internal states--opinions, as it were, as opposed to facts.

 

[Axe Elf]

Faith but no evidence?

Only "evidence" in the sense that I have evidence that God exists--from my own personal experience. If I have faith in my own personal experience, then I can determine facts about the real world--but I cannot know the real world directly, only through the filter of personal experience. And personal experience is notoriously untrustworthy, so that sort of thing doesn't usually count as "evidence" in the court of rational inquiry.