Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[Thermos aquaticus]

How did I misrepresent you? You said "What humans do is no less natural than what birds or ants do. Humans obey all natural laws just like all other species." Did you not?

I never stated that human consciousness was the same as the consciousness of other species.

Um, what? You are the one who stated that "Water has different properties than either oxygen or hydrogen...". They do not, we both agree saying that they do is nonsense. Atoms and water are both physical are they not? The are spacial, deterministic, objective, universally accessible, etc. are they not? Don't you dare tell me that between atoms and water one takes up space and one doesn't, one is objective and one subjective! That would be too far. Meanwhile consciousness is nonspacial, autonomous, subjective, and not universally accessible. Different properties. This may help: Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are the one daring to tell us that something is not material if the whole is different from the parts. You are now arguing against yourself.

Wait, you can know about matter free of consciousness? Can you name a single thing you know without conscious experience? Do you know what the moon and cheese are free of conscious experience. Once again the materialist position devolves into philosophical absurdity.

Can you name a single thing that people can know without a physical brain?

Well if you can reject scientific fact like the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, what scientific facts am I allowed to object to? Special pleading.

It isn't a fact that consciousness suddenly appeared in the upper Paleolithic. That is something you are inventing from whole cloth.

How does consciously and willfully overriding deterministic, physical processes show that we have free will?

You haven't shown that it is willfully. You are inserting your conclusion in your premise. And even then, the Sun overcomes the cold all of the time and no one thinks the Sun is immaterial.

Well yes, time would be the "fourth dimension", and they are all connected because it is the movement of objects within space which produces time.

It is movement which distorts both space and time. Spacetime is one in the same.

Do you know it's actually against the scientific method to believe things simply because "prophets" of science stated so? It's against philosophical skepticism as well, and so-called "scientism" and materialism certainly seem to go hand in hand.

There are multiple experiments demonstrating the properties of spacetime and relativity.

Well, here is a good comparison for why one would have to be of a "higher dimension" to fully observe such a thing. The third dimension viewing the fourth dimension is equivalent to flatlanders somehow being able to view the third dimension in full.

We live in 4 dimensions, so your comparison is seriously flawed.

That's hard to believe as someone who started as a materialistic atheist. Seems more likely you are projecting, as the only possible way to conclude materialist is to assume it is true. If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

If you damage the brain you damage consciousness. That's the evidence. There is also no evidence for a mind independent of a physical brain.

You mean the literally trillions of interactions reported across cultures and time with deities, spirits, ghosts, etc?

All of which have no objective evidence for their existence. We already know that the brain can hallucinate, such as with the use of chemicals which alter the chemistry of the brain and therefore alter consciousness.

Let me ask you, what other common human experience do you doubt by default. If I said I was in pain would you doubt it by default? If I said I was in love would you doubt it by default? If I said that I hate my job, would you doubt it by default? Or are you special pleading?

Do you think humans are infallible?

Well I can prove this is false because:

1. You accept materialism which has no evidence or logical support.

2. You reject known fact like the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the property differentiation between matter and mind.

I already presented the evidence for the physical brain producing the mind, and you have yet to show evidence for human consciousness suddenly emerging.

 

[Audie]

Lol and calling me a "theist" would be just as wrong right? What a joke. Ignored.

Calling you a theist would not be with the intent of saying
that therefore everything you say is illogical. We notice you skipped
mention of how you use the term.

 

[1137]

I'm tired of one side defending, how about you do some defending, provide some evidence, like I've been asking?/

I never stated that human consciousness was the same as the consciousness of other species.

A good retraction, now we're on the same page here.

You are the one daring to tell us that something is not material if the whole is different from the parts. You are now arguing against yourself.

You go ahead and quote where I say that
Nope, something is not material of it does not have material properties. Basic law of identity.

Can you name a single thing that people can know without a physical brain?

Perhaps everything, hard to tell when trapped tied to a physical brain. Look at how Plato viewed knowledge for instance. We can't just assume materialism like you folks are always wanting us to do, especially because of the whole no evidence or reasons thing.

It isn't a fact that consciousness suddenly appeared in the upper Paleolithic. That is something you are inventing from whole cloth.

Lol ok, I invented known science.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0392192107076869

You haven't shown that it is willfully. You are inserting your conclusion in your premise. And even then, the Sun overcomes the cold all of the time and no one thinks the Sun is immaterial.

Haha ok so if you just sat in CBT and didn't willfully engage you'd still benefit? Yeah no, not even close to how counseling or social work is. Remove will and nothing changes. But hey, **** known science amiright?

Itis movement which distorts both space and time. Spacetime is one in the same.

And you can observe that and measure because.... You ignored the video huh.

f you damage the brain you damage consciousness. That's the evidence. There is also no evidence for a mind independent of a physical brain.

Yes, and we'd expect this in idealism and Dualism as well, it doesn't do anything to specifically support materialism. You'd know this if you questioned your position and investigated others! Not to mention divine experience, ghost encounters, NDEs... Again, what other experiences do you inherently reject without evidence to do so?

ll of which have no objective evidence for their existence. We already know that the brain can hallucinate, such as with the use of chemicals which alter the chemistry of the brain and therefore alter consciousness.

Ah, so "assume materialism and your point is wrong!" Classic. Yes, how many times do I have to say the brain and mind influencing each other is expected in non-materialism as well? This is the one piece of evidence you supposedly have and I've refuted it THREE TIMES. You're at the point of fideism.

o you think humans are infallible?

Interesting red herring. No I do not.

already presented the evidence for the physical brain producing the mind, and you have yet to show evidence for human consciousness suddenly emerging.

No, you presented a correlation between brain states and mind states that we'd also expect in Dualism and idealism. This is all you can present, it shows nothing, and you wonder why I won't accept your faith? You choose to keep faith that this supports materialism, you choose your faith over known science and basic philosophy, your position is utterly void.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You go ahead and quote where I say that
Nope, something is not material of it does not have material properties. Basic law of identity.

You have never shown that the mind does not have material properties. Damage the brain, damage the mind.

Perhaps everything, hard to tell when trapped tied to a physical brain. Look at how Plato viewed knowledge for instance. We can't just assume materialism like you folks are always wanting us to do, especially because of the whole no evidence or reasons thing.

Materialism isn't assumed. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence, such as the fact that damaging the brain damages the mind.

Lol ok, I invented known science.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0392192107076869

A bare link isn't going to cut it. You need to discuss the evidence.

Haha ok so if you just say I'm CBT and didn't willfully engage you'd still benefit? Yeah no, not even close to how counseling or social work is. Remove will and nothing changes. But hey, **** known science amiright?

Will you be getting to any evidence?

And you can observe that and measure because.... You ignored the video huh.

I am not going to debate a video. If you can't explain things in your own words then there is nothing to respond to.

Yes, and we'd expect this in idealism and Dualism as well, it doesn't do anything to specifically support materialism.

Parsimony rules out idealism. You need evidence that would distinguish materialism from dualism, and that would be a mind independent of a brain which you don't have. You can try to claim that magical leprechauns would move the Earth in a path around the Sun that is consistent with Newton's laws, but that doesn't evidence leprechauns nor refute the material cause of gravity.

You'd know this if you Wheaton need your position and investigated others! Not to mention divine experience, ghost encounters, NDEs... Again, what other exoeriences do you inherently reject without evidence to do so?

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no objective evidence for these entities, so there is nothing to disprove.

Ah, so "assume materialism and your point is wrong!" Classic. Yes, how many times do I have to say the brain and mind influencing each other is expected in non-materialism as well? This is the one piece of evidence you supposedly have and I've refuted it THREE TIMES. You're at the point of fideism.

Just like magical leprechauns would follow Newton's law.

 

[1137]

You have never shown that the mind does not have material properties. Damage the brain, damage the mind.

Lol then why did you ignore my challenge?

"If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

Google Image Result forhttps://images.pexels.com/photos/355700/pexels-photo-355700.jpeg?cs=srgb&dl=water-blur-ripple-355700.jpg&fm=jpg"

And how many times do I need to explain your "evidence for Materialism" is also expected in Dualism and Idealism??? Like geez!

Materialism isn't assumed. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence, such as the fact that damaging the brain damages the mind.

One piece of evidence that doesn't even specifically support Materialism, that's all you've had. I've pointed this out numerous times. Nothing else?

A bare link isn't going to cut it. You need to discuss the evidence.

I'm just going to point out the obvious special pleading here since I doubt you reject scientific articles that AGREE with your position.

ill you be getting to any evidence?

The nature of human consciousness, it's properties, it's strange rise in the UPR, and it's ability to go against nature aren't enough? Oh right, fideism...

am not going to debate a video. If you can't explain things in your own words then there is nothing to respond to.

You weren't understanding my explanation so I gave you a rather low level video to help illustrate. But hey, you're lack of awareness of Dualism and idealism fits with someone who refused to investigate things.

Parsimony rules out idealism. You need evidence that would distinguish materialism from dualism, and that would be a mind independent of a brain which you don't have. You can try to claim that magical leprechauns would move the Earth in a path around the Sun that is consistent with Newton's laws, but that doesn't evidence leprechauns nor refute the material cause of gravity.

Haha Parsimony rules out idealism? That's laughable, idealism puts what we know above what we know through it. Materialism has to reject what we know in favor of what we know through it, so don't talk about Parsimony! Dualism itself is the most evidences since we have solid, consistent proof of both material and immaterial properties. Plus, ya know, all the other evidence discussed.

Asser made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sweet so you concede materialism is nonsense. Good chat!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol then why did you ignore my challenge?

"If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

Google Image Result forhttps://images.pexels.com/photos/355700/pexels-photo-355700.jpeg?cs=srgb&dl=water-blur-ripple-355700.jpg&fm=jpg"

And how many times do I need to explain your "evidence for Materialism" is also expected in Dualism and Idealism??? Like geez!

You do not seem to realize that though the evidence that supports materialsim can also be claimed by others you have presented no evidence for either of your claims that support your beliefs. Materialism is falsifiable. How would you falsify your beliefs? If you can't come up with a reasonable test then your beliefs move into the realm of "not even wrong".

One piece of evidence that doesn't even specifically support Materialism, that's all you've had. I've pointed this out numerous times. Nothing else?

It strongly supports materialism. If the brain functioned regardless of damage that would be evidence against it. Once again, what tests would falsify your beliefs? If you can't think of any then your ideas have no merit in the world of science.

I'm just going to point out the obvious special pleading here since I doubt you reject scientific articles that AGREE with your position.

People that do not understand logic should not try to apply logical fallacies.

The nature of human consciousness, it's properties, it's strange rise in the UPR, and it's ability to go against nature aren't enough? Oh right, fideism...

What "strange rise"? Your earlier claims were shown to be wrong when the dates were investigated. Now you have moved the goal posts further back in time and made a claim that you don't seem to be able to support. What went "against nature"? What is your evidence for a "strange rise"? So far the evidence has contradicted your specific claims.

You weren't understanding my explanation so I gave you a rather low level video to help illustrate. But hey, you're lack of awareness of Dualism and idealism fits with someone who refused to investigate things.

When you can't support your claims why do you expect people to waste their time on a video? You need to support your claims. Don't expect others to do your homework for them.

Haha Parsimony rules out idealism? That's laughable, idealism puts what we know above what we know through it. Materialism has to reject what we know in favor of what we know through it, so don't talk about Parsimony! Dualism itself is the most evidences since we have solid, consistent proof of both material and immaterial properties. Plus, ya know, all the other evidence discussed.

Did he say that it rules it out? In the sciences it is recognized that if the simpler idea is more often right than an idea that has to have all sorts of strange requirements for it to be correct. And you have yet to provide any evidence that supports your beliefs.

Sweet so you concede materialism is nonsense. Good chat!

And you have that backwards. There is evidence for materialism. In fact there is scientific evidence for materialism. If you cannot name a reasonable test that could falsify your ideas if they are wrong then by definition you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Lol then why did you ignore my challenge?

"If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

I am saying that consciousness is the product of the brain, and the evidence for that claim is that when you damage or alter the brain you alter consciousness.

And how many times do I need to explain your "evidence for Materialism" is also expected in Dualism and Idealism??? Like geez!

How many times do I have to point out how that argument is not logical? The Earth following the orbit predicted by Newton's laws could also support magical leprechuans as well as gravity, using your illogical argument. You need evidence for dualism and idealism that differs from what we would expect from materialism. Otherwise, evidence for materialism is evidence for materialism.

I'm just going to point out the obvious special pleading here since I doubt you reject scientific articles that AGREE with your position.

There is no special pleading. I am asking you to discuss what is in the paper and not give a bare link so that we can discuss it.

The nature of human consciousness, it's properties, it's strange rise in the UPR, and it's ability to go against nature aren't enough? Oh right, fideism...

You haven't shown that consciousness goes against nature. Your argument seems to be a long string of bare assertions.

You weren't understanding my explanation so I gave you a rather low level video to help illustrate. But hey, you're lack of awareness of Dualism and idealism fits with someone who refused to investigate things.

Why should I investigate it when you won't even discuss it? It is just common courtesy to present the argument in your own voice instead of linking bare links and videos.

Haha Parsimony rules out idealism? That's laughable, idealism puts what we know above what we know through it. Materialism has to reject what we know in favor of what we know through it, so don't talk about Parsimony! Dualism itself is the most evidences since we have solid, consistent proof of both material and immaterial properties. Plus, ya know, all the other evidence discussed.

We don't have to rule out magical leprechauns pushing planets around in order to evidence gravity.

[*content removed by RF staff*]

 

[1137]

You do not seem to realize that though the evidence that supports materialsim can also be claimed by others you have presented no evidence for either of your claims that support your beliefs.

Well besides the evidence from philosophy, anthropology, and cognitive science you mean. Just cause you don't like what the evidence says doesn't invalidate it as evidence...

Materialism is falsifiable. How would you falsify your beliefs? If you can't come up with a reasonable test then your beliefs move into the realm of "not even wrong".

Well not only can materialism be falsified, it has been . Of course non-materialism can be falsified... By showing materialism is true. I'll extend you the same challenge:

"If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

Google Image Result for https://images.pexels.com/photos/355700/pexels-photo-355700.jpeg?cs=srgb&dl=water-blur-ripple-355700.jpg&fm=jpg "

strongly supports materialism. If the brain functioned regardless of damage that would be evidence against it. Once again, what tests would falsify your beliefs? If you can't think of any then your ideas have no merit in the world of science.

Except Ive explained why it doesn't support materialism like ten times now. If only consciosness exists, or if the brain is a reviewer of consciousness (idealism and Dualism) then OF COURSE the two will be correlates. Like c'mon guys, really????

Apparently non-materialism cannot be falsified no matter how much non-materialists ask for materialists to do so. This doesn't mean it cannot be falsified, as shown above. It simply means nothing has been provided in support of materialism to reject non-materialism positions.

ople that do not understand logic should not try to apply logical fallacies.

Oh such a bad burn! How about some logic and evidence instead?

What"strange rise"? Your earlier claims were shown to be wrong when the dates were investigated. Now you have moved the goal posts further back in time and made a claim that you don't seem to be able to support. What went "against nature"? What is your evidence for a "strange rise"? So far the evidence has contradicted your specific claims.

I've extensively elaborated on both of these "objections" throughout this thread, I don't think I need to repeat myself past the fifth time.

n you can't support your claims why do you expect people to waste their time on a video? You need to support your claims. Don't expect others to do your homework for them.

The irony of this is insane!

Did say that it rules it out? In the sciences it is recognized that if the simpler idea is more often right than an idea that has to have all sorts of strange requirements for it to be correct. And you have yet to provide any evidence that supports your beliefs.

I literally explained right in what you quoted why materialism actually makes far more assumptions than other positions. Is there like some genetic component to materialism that makes you guys ignore everything anyone says against your position and pretend it was never explained ? It's just such a common occurrence...

And you have that backwards. There is evidence for materialism. In fact there is scientific evidence for materialism. If you cannot name a reasonable test that could falsify your ideas if they are wrong then by definition you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

Haha right, you claimed it so let me just hop on and believe you on faith. If this evidence exists why can you not present it?! Again I direct you to my above challenenge, if materialism is true you can easily meet my challenge and demonstrate it's truth. If not, well, "put up or shut up" is a good saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well besides the evidence from philosophy, anthropology, and cognitive science you mean. Just cause you don't like what the evidence says doesn't invalidate it as evidence...

Sorry, claims that are not supported are not examples of evidence. By the way how can you have evidence from philosophy? You have been shown to misinterpret anthropology in the past and you supplied no evidence there. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Well not only can materialism be falsified, it has been . Of course non-materialism can be falsified... By showing materialism is true. I'll extend you the same challenge:

"If consciousness is spacial, objective, and universally accessible, please demonstrate so now. Here, I'll even go first in good faith and do so with water to show how simple what I am asking for is.

Google Image Result for https://images.pexels.com/photos/355700/pexels-photo-355700.jpeg?cs=srgb&dl=water-blur-ripple-355700.jpg&fm=jpg "

Please do not make obviously false claims followed by nonsense.

Try again.

Except Ive explained why it doesn't support materialism like ten times now. If only consciosness exists, or if the brain is a reviewer of consciousness (idealism and Dualism) then OF COURSE the two will be correlates. Like c'mon guys, really????

Apparently non-materialism cannot be falsified no matter how much non-materialists ask for materialists to do so. This doesn't mean it cannot be falsified, as shown above. It simply means nothing has been provided in support of materialism to reject non-materialism positions.

Word salad is not an explanation.

Try again.

Oh such a bad burn! How about some logic and evidence instead?

The problem is that you understand neither. Let's start with the concept of scientific evidence. Something completely lacking for your beliefs. Are you ready to learn?

I've extensively elaborated on both of these "objections" throughout this thread, I don't think I need to repeat myself past the fifth time.

You have only repeated previously refuted claims.

The irony of this is insane!

So you do not understand the concept of irony either.

I literally explained right in what you quoted why materialism actually makes far more assumptions than other positions. Is there like some genetic component to materialism that makes you guys ignore everything anyone says against your position and pretend it was never explained ? It's just such a common occurrence...

No you didn't. I am sure that others would have noticed if you did. And no, materialism makes far further assumptions. What assumptions do you think are made by materialists that are not made by others?

Haha right, you claimed it so let me just hop on and believe you on faith. If this evidence exists why can you not present it?! Again I direct you to my above challenenge, if materialism is true you can easily meet my challenge and demonstrate it's truth. If not, well, "put up or shut up" is a good saying.

No, you can't demonstrate the "truth" of an idea. You can show evidence that supports an idea and no more. In the world of science there is only evidentiary support or refutation. Ideas cannot be proven right, but they can at times be shown to be wrong. Your ideas are in the "Not even wrong" category because you can't think of a test that confirms or refutes them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You guys aren't even together enough to know the philosophical term for your beliefs system. We're done here, at least creationists and flat earthers can own what they are, and apparently debating against materialism is a violation of RF rules. You enjoy your faith.

You're looking for answers in the wrong places. You won't find them in magical thinking, nor in contrived gods.

As long as you continue in your present path, you will remain a sailor lost at sea in search of a legendary destination that doesn't exist. You say that you seek truth, but faith cannot be a path to truth given that any idea and its mutually exclusive alternatives can all be believed by faith, and at most one of them is correct.

Look out, because here comes some free advice : Seek "excellence of character and soundness of mind" (syphrosyne). The rest will follow. I promise.

Or remain a perpetual searcher, which is not a virtue as some seem to imply, but a failure to launch.

(This is one of two Grateful Dead lyric references in this post)

 

[1137]

I am saying that consciousness is the product of the brain, and the evidence for that claim is that when you damage or alter the brain you alter consciousness.

Yes, I understand your position. If the brain is a receiver of consciousness like in Dualism we would also expect brain damage to effect how consciousness come through. If all reality is mental then "brain changes" are just mental changes in the first place. Do you not see why this evidence does nothing to support materialism specifically over another position?

How many times do I have to point out how that argument is not logical? The Earth following the orbit predicted by Newton's laws could also support magical leprechuans as well as gravity, using your illogical argument. You need evidence for dualism and idealism that differs from what we would expect from materialism. Otherwise, evidence for materialism is evidence for materialism.

Yes, that evidence includes property Dualism, the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, the abilities of consciousness, billions of human interactions with disembodied consciousness, etc. You're totally right that using this one evidence for materialism is equivalent to arguing physics is run by leprechams, you'd need way more evidence than that one thing you keep repeating for materialism to be valid.

hereis no special pleading. I am asking you to discuss what is in the paper and not give a bare link so that we can discuss it.

I've already explained why the UPR works against materialism several times, you obviously can't be bothered to read my replies.

You haven't shown that consciousness goes against nature. Your argument seems to be a long string of bare assertions.

You mean besides how we can question, manipulate, and go against nature, right? Besides how consciousness has completely different properties than natur? Besides all the other points you've been unwilling to refute? Whatever man lol.

Why should I investigate it when you won't even discuss it? It is just common courtesy to present the argument in your own voice instead of linking bare links and videos.

I did discuss it, and you didn't understand, so I added a supplemental video.

[*content removed by RF staff*]

Sorry, claims that are not supported are not examples of evidence. By the way how can you have evidence from philosophy? You have been shown to misinterpret anthropology in the past and you supplied no evidence there. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Well yeah, this is why I reject materialism and provide exstensive philosophical and scientific support for my positions. I don't really have time to explain how philosophy works for you, just tell me if you need to go looking for a square circle or a married bachelor to confirm they don't exist. As for anthropology, if you want me to reject scientific takes on the UPR you need to give a reason to, not just claim I don't understand anthropology because you don't like what it's evidence suggests lol.

Please do not make obviously false claims followed by nonsense.

Wow, what an excellent refutation. Also noting you couldn't meet my simple challenge.

Word salad is not an explanation.

Try again.

Another refutation really befiting the intellectual nature of materialism, well done.

he problem is that you understand neither. Let's start with the concept of scientific evidence. Something completely lacking for your beliefs. Are you ready to learn?

Weird since I was a science major! Sure, let's discuss scientific evidence. Where would you like to start? Cognitive therapy? Anthropology?

You have only repeated previously refuted claims.

Yet another refutation fitting with the materialist mindset!

No you didn't. I am sure that others would have noticed if you did. And no, materialism makes far further assumptions. What assumptions do you think are made by materialists that are not made by others?

Haha sure, subsituting what we know for what we know through it is totally less assumptions. By now you've shown philosophy has no value to you.

No, you can't demonstrate the "truth" of an idea. You can show evidence that supports an idea and no more. In the world of science there is only evidentiary support or refutation. Ideas cannot be proven right, but they can at times be shown to be wrong. Your ideas are in the "Not even wrong" category because you can't think of a test that confirms or refutes them.

Oh my, so now you're resorting to "we can never know anything?" Wouldn't that include materialism? I agree with your assessment in general but the problem is you guys reject known science that contradicts your position, then you run those scientists out of town. Honestly you're the new Christianity hahaha.

You're looking for answers in the wrong places. You won't find them in magical thinking, nor in contrived gods.

As long as you continue in your present path, you will remain a sailor lost at sea in search of a legendary destination that doesn't exist. You say that you seek truth, but faith cannot be a path to truth given that any idea and its mutually exclusive alternatives can all be believed by faith, and at most one of them is correct.

Look out, because here comes some free advice : Seek "excellence of character and soundness of mind" (syphrosyne). The rest will follow. I promise.

Or remain a perpetual searcher, which is not a virtue as some seem to imply, but a failure to launch.

(This is one of two Grateful Dead lyric references in this post)

Well if I can't find truth in science and logic what should I do? I know you go for comfort but that just doesn't work for me. Blind faith maybe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand your position. If the brain is a receiver of consciousness like in Dualism we would also expect brain damage to effect how consciousness come through. If all reality is mental then "brain changes" are just mental changes in the first place. Do you not see why this evidence does nothing to support materialism specifically over another position?

But it does support materialism over other positions. If other positions cannot be tested then they by definition have no scientific evidence for them. When one side has scientific evidence and the other side has none I will usually go with the side that has reliable evidence.

Yes, that evidence includes property Dualism, the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, the abilities of consciousness, billions of human interactions with disembodied consciousness, etc. You're totally right that using this one evidence for materialism is equivalent to arguing physics is run by leprechams, you'd need way more evidence than that one thing you keep repeating for materialism to be valid.

Nope, not if you can't think of a test that refutes the idea if it is wrong. And please, you are claiming that others are guilty of your sins. You won't convince any reasoning person that way.

I've already explained why the UPR works against materialism several times, you obviously can't be bothered to read my replies.

Then why has no one seen this explanation? I have seen you fail utterly multiple times. You need to drop the Gish Gallop and concentrate on one point at a time. Otherwise the amount of energy that it takes to refute your nonsense is a simple denial.

You mean besides how we can question, manipulate, and go against nature, right? Besides how consciousness has completely different properties than natur? Besides all the other points you've been unwilling to refute? Whatever man lol.

Once again you have not demonstrated that at all. All you have demonstrated is your lack of evidence and your inability to understand the sciences.

I did discuss it, and you didn't understand, so I added a supplemental video.

Wrong. We understood your errors. You cannot support your claims, so why watch a video? You need more than mere failed arguments to get others to watch a video that you posted.

How? You said a position without evidence can be rejected without evidence right? And the one shred of evidence you have doesn't actually support your position. Therefore I reject your positiion and so would you if you followed your own logic.

Wrong again. Since you do not understand the nature of evidence why not take a break and discuss that. At this point all I need to do is to gainsay the nonsense you have posted since you do not seem interested in learning.

Well yeah, this is why I reject materialism and provide exstensive philosophical support for my positions. I don't really have time to explain how philosophy works for you, just tell me if you need to go looking for a square circle or a married bachelor to confirm they don't exist. As for anthropology, if you want me to respect scientific takes on the UPR you need to give a reason to, not just claim I don't understand anthropology because you don't like what it's evidence suggests lol.

Please, we all know that you are the one lacking any understanding of philosophy. Why do you run away from even the simple concept of evidence?

Wow, what an excellent refutation. Also noting you couldn't meet my simple challenge.

All that is needed to refute such a poor argument.

Another refutation really befiting the intellectual nature of materialism, well done.

Since it refuted your position imagine how wear your arguments are. Once again you are projecting your flaws upon others.

Weird since I was a science major! Sure, let's discuss scientific evidence. Where would you like to start? Cognitive therapy? Anthropology?

You were a science major? Where and when? It is apparent you do not understand the sciences. And let's begin with the simple concept of scientific evidence. A concept that you clearly do not understand. When you are ready to get serious I am ready to discuss this.

Yet another refutation fitting with the materialist mindset!

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong for at least the third time in this post.

Haha sure, subsituting what we know for what we know through it is totally less assumptions. By now you've shown philosophy has no value to you.

Oh my, so now you're resorting to "we can never know anything?" Wouldn't that include materialism? I agree with your assessment in general but the problem is you guys reject known science that contradicts your position, then you run those scientists out of town. Honestly you're the new Christianity hahaha.[/quote]

So you could not even name one assumption. Much less an assumption that materialism has that other concepts do not have. You are driving on empty.

Well if I can't find truth in science and logic what should I do? I know you go for comfort but that just doesn't work for me. Blind faith maybe?

Drop the search for an absolute "truth". Try to correct your ideas that are unsupported and nonsensical. And please, you are the one with blind faiht.

Drop the Gish Gallop and see if you can debate properly. Until then you have lost.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, I understand your position. If the brain is a receiver of consciousness like in Dualism we would also expect brain damage to effect how
consciousness come through.

If magic leprechauns were trying to make it look like the Earth was obeying Newton's law then we would observe an orbit that followed Newton's law. That is not a valid argument for magical leprechauns nor is it an argument against the existence of gravity.

If all reality is mental then "brain changes" are just mental changes in the first place. Do you not see why this evidence does nothing to support materialism specifically over another position?

That makes zero sense. Are you now doubting that there is a real objective universe out there?

Yes, that evidence includes property Dualism, the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, the abilities of consciousness, billions of human interactions with disembodied consciousness, etc. You're totally right that using this one evidence for materialism is equivalent to arguing physics is run by leprechams, you'd need way more evidence than that one thing you keep repeating for materialism to be valid.

As Subduction Zone has stated, you don't seem to understand what evidence is. Bare assertions are not evidence.

I've already explained why the UPR works against materialism several times, you obviously can't be bothered to read my replies.

No, you have made bare assertions with no evidence to back them. That is not evidence. You have given us no evidence that humans prior to the UPR lacked consciousness, as one example. You also failed to show that these changes occurred in a single generation, or anything even close to a single generation. You might as well claim that humans in North America went through a massive change in just a few generations, ignoring all the while that it was Europeans replacing indigenous populations that caused the drastic change. Last I checked, migration and replacement does not go against any process in nature.

You mean besides how we can question, manipulate, and go against nature, right? Besides how consciousness has completely different properties than natur? Besides all the other points you've been unwilling to refute? Whatever man lol.

That's like saying birds go against nature because they can fly. Nothing humans do breaks a single natural law.

I did discuss it, and you didn't understand, so I added a supplemental video.

You seem to confuse not understanding with not agreeing.

How? You said a position without evidence can be rejected without evidence right? And the one shred of evidence you have doesn't actually support your position.

Say what????????

Are you seriously saying that if the mind is the product of the physical brain that damaging the physical brain would not affect the mind?????? REALLY?????

Well yeah, this is why I reject materialism and provide exstensive philosophical support for my positions.

When you have evidence, let us know.

Weird since I was a science major! Sure, let's discuss scientific evidence. Where would you like to start? Cognitive therapy? Anthropology?

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Haha sure, subsituting what we know for what we know through it is totally less assumptions. By now you've shown philosophy has no value to you.

Evidence? Have any?

 

[gnostic]

Well besides the evidence from philosophy, anthropology, and cognitive science you mean. Just cause you don't like what the evidence says doesn't invalidate it as evidence...

Sorry, but there are literally hundreds of philosophies, and they often don’t agree with each other.

Some philosophies have died out because some have become outdated and replaced by better alternatives, some are simply no longer valid, due to being unrealistic.

All of them are “just talk”, focusing on a specific worldview, and none of them concern itself with how to obtain actual “evidences”.

Empiricism, methodological naturalism and logical positivism do talk of not accepting any statement or claim without verification, eg through discovery of evidences or through experiments, but they are still just talk. There is no work done.

Actually doing science, through formulating explanations and predictions (thus hypothesis), testing the hypothesis through finding evidences or through repeated experiments, analysing the findings before reaching conclusion if the hypothesis “work” or “not work”.

My point is that philosophies don’t really concern itself of doing the hard work of finding evidences.

But the question to you is which “philosophy” are you talking about?

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Criticize each other's ideas all you want, but do not criticize each other, and do not troll each other.​

 

[1137]

But it does support materialism over other positions. If other positions cannot be tested then they by definition have no scientific evidence for them. When one side has scientific evidence and the other side has none I will usually go with the side that has reliable evidence.

Agreed, which is why I reject materialism - it contradicts everything we know about our own experience, it contradicts what we know about human evolution, it contradicts what we know in cognitive science, and the one piece of arguable evidence for it does not even support the position itself.

Nope, not if you can't think of a test that refutes the idea if it is wrong. And please, you are claiming that others are guilty of your sins. You won't convince any reasoning person that way.

Haha, well I gave a very clear test and even provided an example from the other debator's early analogy (where mind:matter::water is to the atoms that create it). So the test was present, I showed you precisely how simple the test is, and not only could you show consciousness to have the same properties of matter, you're pretending the test was never put forth! #materialism

Then why has no one seen this explanation? I have seen you fail utterly multiple times. You need to drop the Gish Gallop and concentrate on one point at a time. Otherwise the amount of energy that it takes to refute your nonsense is a simple denial.

I... apologize for providing too much evidence... I guess?

Once again you have not demonstrated that at all. All you have demonstrated is your lack of evidence and your inability to understand the sciences.

Not only have I explained it several times I have explained why from both the philosophical and scientific perspective. "You mean besides how we can question, manipulate, and go against nature, right? Besides how consciousness has completely different properties than natur? Besides all the other points you've been unwilling to refute? Whatever man lol."

I really need to demonstrate, in a philosophical debate, that we can question nature? My favorite example of the manipulation of nature in in medication, because we can take chemicals that exist and combine them into useful forms. We aren't talking about finding aloe in the wilderness and using it as medicine, we are talking about the creation of non-natural substance that fight against aspects of nature. The flu shot, for example, is such a manipulation which we then apply to fight against deterministic nature, in this case the form of the flu. And go against has been shown in things such as cognitive science. Take a depressed individual with decent coping skills. They become aware of the physiological processes in their bodies - their depression - and then willfully implement mental tools in order to get control over those processes. This is why therapy is such an important part of learning to cope with mental illness.

As for the properties, I've said this like ten times. Spacial vs. nonspacial, objective vs. subjective, universal vs. private, accessible to the senses and not accessible to the sense, deterministic and autonomous, the list goes on and on.

But no, no reasoning or science at all!

Wrong. We understood your errors. You cannot support your claims, so why watch a video? You need more than mere failed arguments to get others to watch a video that you posted.

Oh? And what was the error, then?

Wrong again. Since you do not understand the nature of evidence why not take a break and discuss that. At this point all I need to do is to gainsay the nonsense you have posted since you do not seem interested in learning.

"
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Example: that the mind and body have different properties is an available fact indicating materialism is false
.
Example: that higher consciousness spread throughout the entire species hundreds of thousands of years after physiological evolution is an available fact indicating it violates known evolution, where this does not occur.

Example: that human consciousness is capable of recognizing and going against natural processes, such as depression, is an available fact that consciousness is separate from or precedes matter.

Please, we all know that you are the one lacking any understanding of philosophy. Why do you run away from even the simple concept of evidence?

I've given you literal paragraphs now of evidence, mean while you didn't meet my extremely simple challenge. #materialism

You were a science major? Where and when? It is apparent you do not understand the sciences. And let's begin with the simple concept of scientific evidence. A concept that you clearly do not understand. When you are ready to get serious I am ready to discuss this.

Yep, believe it or not many of us are not materialists, especially now that I'm more in behavioral health. Materlism literally contradicts the entire field haha. But like good old Dr. A says:

"Centuries ago religious heretics were tortured and executed. Modern academic/scientific heretics will merely find themselves Orwell’s “unpersons”: unpublished, unemployed, and professionally exiled."

So you could not even name one assumption. Much less an assumption that materialism has that other concepts do not have. You are driving on empty.

Assumptions of materialism? It IS an assumption. It assumes that all reduces to matter with no reason to believe so and the numerous reasons to believe it is not.

If magic leprechauns were trying to make it look like the Earth was obeying Newton's law then we would observe an orbit that followed Newton's law. That is not a valid argument for magical leprechauns nor is it an argument against the existence of gravity.

Yes I know, just like your "evidence for materialism" could be true theoretically but has no further support and contradicts what we know about the mind and matter. If you realize this is as silly as a leprachaun in space WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT?!

That makes zero sense. Are you now doubting that there is a real objective universe out there?

No, we are discussing the nature of that objective universe.

As Subduction Zone has stated, you don't seem to understand what evidence is. Bare assertions are not evidence.

Haha whatever you guys. I've provided paragraphs of evidences, links to scientific articles, names and concepts for further study. But yeah, I don't know what evidence is haha.

No, you have made bare assertions with no evidence to back them. That is not evidence. You have given us no evidence that humans prior to the UPR lacked consciousness, as one example. You also failed to show that these changes occurred in a single generation, or anything even close to a single generation. You might as well claim that humans in North America went through a massive change in just a few generations, ignoring all the while that it was Europeans replacing indigenous populations that caused the drastic change. Last I checked, migration and replacement does not go against any process in nature.

Higher consciousness first of all. But how have i not? I've provided scientific data on the rise of art, culture, religion, etc at this time in human history. Do you have contradictory evidence that shows this has existed for longer, maybe evidence of a place like Atlantis with an early advanced consciouness? If you believe the data we have gathered over decades on isolated cultures across the globe engaging in higher conscious activities you need to provide even the slightest shred of evidence.

That's like saying birds go against nature because they can fly. Nothing humans do breaks a single natural law.

Um... wut?

Say what????????

Are you seriously saying that if the mind is the product of the physical brain that damaging the physical brain would not affect the mind?????? REALLY?????

Not even close? I've said REPEATEDLY that the correlation between brain and mind is evidence that would be expected in all positions, how the **** could you possibly think that's me saying what you claim?

When you have evidence, let us know.

What a ****ing joke, this is literally pathetic. Feel free to address ANY of the points. For the what, 15th time without a single attempt at refutation?

"My favorite example of the manipulation of nature in in medication, because we can take chemicals that exist and combine them into useful forms. We aren't talking about finding aloe in the wilderness and using it as medicine, we are talking about the creation of non-natural substance that fight against aspects of nature. The flu shot, for example, is such a manipulation which we then apply to fight against deterministic nature, in this case the form of the flu. And go against has been shown in things such as cognitive science. Take a depressed individual with decent coping skills. They become aware of the physiological processes in their bodies - their depression - and then willfully implement mental tools in order to get control over those processes. This is why therapy is such an important part of learning to cope with mental illness.

As for the properties, I've said this like ten times. Spacial vs. nonspacial, objective vs. subjective, universal vs. private, accessible to the senses and not accessible to the sense, deterministic and autonomous, the list goes on and on."

You just shot yourself in the foot.

If I did you could explain how. So being academically familar with science is something negative now? hahahahahahaha #materialism

Evidence? Have any?

Just sad.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes I know, just like your "evidence for materialism" could be true theoretically but has no further support and contradicts what we know about the mind and matter. If you realize this is as silly as a leprachaun in space WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT?!

Until you present evidence that contradicts the position that the mind is a product of the physical brain then why should I believe it exists?

You are the one pushing for magical leprechauns. You are pushing for a realm outside of our universe where consciousness exists and it magically interacts with our brains in a manner that is indistinguishable from the brain acting alone. We have evidence for the brain. We can see it, for crying out loud. Where are the observations of consciousness being independent of the brain?

Haha whatever you guys. I've provided paragraphs of evidences, links to scientific articles, names and concepts for further study. But yeah, I don't know what evidence is haha.

Where are the scientific articles where they report observations of consciousness being independent of the physical brain?

Higher

consciousness first of all. But how have i not? I've provided scientific data on the rise of art, culture, religion, etc at this time in human history.

How is that evidence against my position?

Not even close? I've said REPEATEDLY that the correlation between brain and mind is evidence that would be expected in all positions, how the **** could you possibly think that's me saying what you claim?

That's like saying the orbit of the Earth is what we would expect if leprechauns were pushing the Earth around the Sun.

What a ****ing joke, this is literally pathetic. Feel free to address ANY of the points. For the what, 15th time without a single attempt at refutation?

I don't have to refute claims that have no evidence.

"My favorite example of the manipulation of nature in in medication, because we can take chemicals that exist and combine them into useful forms. We aren't talking about finding aloe in the wilderness and using it as medicine, we are talking about the creation of non-natural substance that fight against aspects of nature. The flu shot, for example, is such a manipulation which we then apply to fight against deterministic nature, in this case the form of the flu. And go against has been shown in things such as cognitive science. Take a depressed individual with decent coping skills. They become aware of the physiological processes in their bodies - their depression - and then willfully implement mental tools in order to get control over those processes. This is why therapy is such an important part of learning to cope with mental illness.

As for the properties, I've said this like ten times. Spacial vs. nonspacial, objective vs. subjective, universal vs. private, accessible to the senses and not accessible to the sense, deterministic and autonomous, the list goes on and on."

No natural laws are broken in the process of making medications. The line between natural and artificial is an entirely arbitrary distinction. Humans are as much a part of nature as anything else. Humans no more go against the deterministic process of nature than the Sun goes against that same determinism when it warms cold oceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, which is why I reject materialism - it contradicts everything we know about our own experience, it contradicts what we know about human evolution, it contradicts what we know in cognitive science, and the one piece of arguable evidence for it does not even support the position itself.



Haha, well I gave a very clear test and even provided an example from the other debator's early analogy (where mind:matter::water is to the atoms that create it). So the test was present, I showed you precisely how simple the test is, and not only could you show consciousness to have the same properties of matter, you're pretending the test was never put forth! #materialism



I... apologize for providing too much evidence... I guess?



Not only have I explained it several times I have explained why from both the philosophical and scientific perspective. "You mean besides how we can question, manipulate, and go against nature, right? Besides how consciousness has completely different properties than natur? Besides all the other points you've been unwilling to refute? Whatever man lol."

I really need to demonstrate, in a philosophical debate, that we can question nature? My favorite example of the manipulation of nature in in medication, because we can take chemicals that exist and combine them into useful forms. We aren't talking about finding aloe in the wilderness and using it as medicine, we are talking about the creation of non-natural substance that fight against aspects of nature. The flu shot, for example, is such a manipulation which we then apply to fight against deterministic nature, in this case the form of the flu. And go against has been shown in things such as cognitive science. Take a depressed individual with decent coping skills. They become aware of the physiological processes in their bodies - their depression - and then willfully implement mental tools in order to get control over those processes. This is why therapy is such an important part of learning to cope with mental illness.

As for the properties, I've said this like ten times. Spacial vs. nonspacial, objective vs. subjective, universal vs. private, accessible to the senses and not accessible to the sense, deterministic and autonomous, the list goes on and on.

But no, no reasoning or science at all!



Oh? And what was the error, then?



"
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Example: that the mind and body have different properties is an available fact indicating materialism is false
.
Example: that higher consciousness spread throughout the entire species hundreds of thousands of years after physiological evolution is an available fact indicating it violates known evolution, where this does not occur.

Example: that human consciousness is capable of recognizing and going against natural processes, such as depression, is an available fact that consciousness is separate from or precedes matter.



I've given you literal paragraphs now of evidence, mean while you didn't meet my extremely simple challenge. #materialism



Yep, believe it or not many of us are not materialists, especially now that I'm more in behavioral health. Materlism literally contradicts the entire field haha. But like good old Dr. A says:

"Centuries ago religious heretics were tortured and executed. Modern academic/scientific heretics will merely find themselves Orwell’s “unpersons”: unpublished, unemployed, and professionally exiled."



Assumptions of materialism? It IS an assumption. It assumes that all reduces to matter with no reason to believe so and the numerous reasons to believe it is not.



Yes I know, just like your "evidence for materialism" could be true theoretically but has no further support and contradicts what we know about the mind and matter. If you realize this is as silly as a leprachaun in space WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT?!



No, we are discussing the nature of that objective universe.



Haha whatever you guys. I've provided paragraphs of evidences, links to scientific articles, names and concepts for further study. But yeah, I don't know what evidence is haha.



Higher consciousness first of all. But how have i not? I've provided scientific data on the rise of art, culture, religion, etc at this time in human history. Do you have contradictory evidence that shows this has existed for longer, maybe evidence of a place like Atlantis with an early advanced consciouness? If you believe the data we have gathered over decades on isolated cultures across the globe engaging in higher conscious activities you need to provide even the slightest shred of evidence.



Um... wut?



Not even close? I've said REPEATEDLY that the correlation between brain and mind is evidence that would be expected in all positions, how the **** could you possibly think that's me saying what you claim?



What a ****ing joke, this is literally pathetic. Feel free to address ANY of the points. For the what, 15th time without a single attempt at refutation?

"My favorite example of the manipulation of nature in in medication, because we can take chemicals that exist and combine them into useful forms. We aren't talking about finding aloe in the wilderness and using it as medicine, we are talking about the creation of non-natural substance that fight against aspects of nature. The flu shot, for example, is such a manipulation which we then apply to fight against deterministic nature, in this case the form of the flu. And go against has been shown in things such as cognitive science. Take a depressed individual with decent coping skills. They become aware of the physiological processes in their bodies - their depression - and then willfully implement mental tools in order to get control over those processes. This is why therapy is such an important part of learning to cope with mental illness.

As for the properties, I've said this like ten times. Spacial vs. nonspacial, objective vs. subjective, universal vs. private, accessible to the senses and not accessible to the sense, deterministic and autonomous, the list goes on and on."



If I did you could explain how. So being academically familar with science is something negative now? hahahahahahaha #materialism



Just sad.

What a bunch of ignorant tripe.

You constantly contradict yourself and spew nonsense. Do you wish to learn or merely make yourself an object of ridicule?

If you can debate properly I will gladly help you, until you do you need to remember that all of your claims have been refuted.

 

[1137]

What a bunch of ignorant tripe.

You constantly contradict yourself and spew nonsense. Do you wish to learn or merely make yourself an object of ridicule?

If you can debate properly I will gladly help you, until you do you need to remember that all of your claims have been refuted.

So you cant refute anything I say and can't point out a single supposed contradiction hahaha. #materialism

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So you cant refute anything I say and can't point out a single supposed contradiction hahaha. #materialism

You would need to present facts in order for there to be something to refute.