Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Audie]

Of course if one bases what one is trying to refute on a strawman then it is easy. I guess if we do not agree with his strawman he can't refute us and we are therefore not "honest". Strangely enough he won't even post a link to what he thinks "materialism" is. Using this definition of Materialism I wonder where the faith is:

Materialism - Wikipedia

The whole thing with "faith" is that science is equal to or less than religion and "metaphysics". At best, it is based on faith guesses and assumptions.

Their god, on the other hand, has the Creator of the Universe, the bible, a host of angels, and all t he glory of creation, as well as logic and metaphysics on its side. And, of course, faith too.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

yes, something must have triggered their faith.

But why must that something be evidence?

 

[1137]

Could you please present the 'Hard' problem of consciousness and show how it implies something non-material?

It's simple really: consciousness and matter have different properties and no known mechanism by which matter creates consciousness. Further, consciousness is a certainty all knowledge of matter relies on, so it cannot be reduced to it or eliminated.

I really wish people would study positions besides theirs before settling on a position haha.

 

[1137]

No, that is just a vapid empty claim.

Lol so where's the evidence then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol so where's the evidence then?

Yes, where is it? You have made claims but supplied no evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's simple really: consciousness and matter have different properties and no known mechanism by which matter creates consciousness.

Light and hydrogen have different properties, but that doesn't change the fact that the fusion of hydrogen in our Sun produces the light we see. I don't see why an emergent property of matter would have to have the same properties as that matter.

Further, consciousness is a certainty all knowledge of matter relies on, so it cannot be reduced to it or eliminated.

Molecules of H2O interact to create the emergent property of wetness, and that property goes away if you reduce it down to a single molecule of H2O. That doesn't change the fact that wetness is an emergent property of water molecules.

I really wish people would study positions besides theirs before settling on a position haha.

I wish people would Google "psychological projection".

 

[Polymath257]

It's simple really: consciousness and matter have different properties and no known mechanism by which matter creates consciousness. Further, consciousness is a certainty all knowledge of matter relies on, so it cannot be reduced to it or eliminated.

I really wish people would study positions besides theirs before settling on a position haha.

Hmm...but there is every evidence that matter (in particular the brain) does create consciousness. The issue is that we don't know the specific mechanism.

Also, matter does NOT relay on consciousness. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true: consciousness relies on matter to exist at all.

I also wish people would study a bit before settling on a position.

 

[1137]

Yes, where is it? You have made claims but supplied no evidence.

.... My point is YHERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MATERIALISM. Am I speaking English?

Light and hydrogen have different properties, but that doesn't change the fact that the fusion of hydrogen in our Sun produces the light we see. I don't see why an emergent property of matter would have to have the same properties as that matter.



Molecules of H2O interact to create the emergent property of wetness, and that property goes away if you reduce it down to a single molecule of H2O. That doesn't change the fact that wetness is an emergent property of water molecules.



I wish people would Google "psychological projection".

It's not simply that their properties differ, but that the properties of mind contradict the properties of matter. Light and wetness are still ohysical properties. So much for your projection theory

 

[1137]

Hmm...but there is every evidence that matter (in particular the brain) does create consciousness. The issue is that we don't know the specific mechanism.

Also, matter does NOT relay on consciousness. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true: consciousness relies on matter to exist at all.

I also wish people would study a bit before settling on a position.

But see, there isn't any such evidence or you'd present it. As to your second claim, can you know or show me anything about matter without telling on your consciousness?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.... My point is YHERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MATERIALISM. Am I speaking English?

This is a positive assertion on your part. That puts the burden of proof upon you. What evidence do you have that backs this claim? It appears that you do not understand the nature of evidence. I do believe that I can post evidence to the contrary, but I will wait for you to support your claim first.

It's not simply that their properties differ, but that the properties of mind contradict the properties of matter. Light and wetness are still ohysical properties. So much for your projection theory

Another empty claim that I doubt if you will support this with evidence. And yes, you are projecting your flaws upon others. I will support my claims, which came after yours, after you either support your claims or admit that you can't. You made your claims first, you need to support them before I have any burden to do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But see, there isn't any such evidence or you'd present it. As to your second claim, can you know or show me anything about matter without telling on your consciousness?

I do believe that he is patiently waiting for you to support your claims. Once more, you made your various claims first and people have repeatedly asked for more then mere assertion.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But see, there isn't any such evidence or you'd present it. As to your second claim, can you know or show me anything about matter without telling on your consciousness?

1. Psychotropic drugs alter consciousness.

2. There is no evidence of a consciousness independent of a physical brain.

3. Physical manipulation of the brain changes consciousness.

That's some pretty strong evidence that consciousness is tied to the physical brain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's an atheistic position because materialism would objectively disprove the existence of deities which are explicitly immaterial beings.

I'm an atheist, but not a materialist. I am agnostic regarding the fundamental nature of reality: mind, matter, both (dualism), or neither (neutral monism). There is not only no need to take a position, there is no way to rule any of those options in or out.

We mostly see idealism from the theists and supernaturalists. They like to make their gods and spirits the fundamental reality, which I see as no more justified than any other option. As I said, we must remain agnostic on these matters until we can declare one correct with more than just the will to believe so.

It's not simply that their properties differ, but that the properties of mind contradict the properties of matter.

Not to me.

Mind and matter contradict one another? What does that mean? That they are unrelated to one another?

You seem to be going the dualist route now. I think you want to stay with idealism - matter derives from mind. Matter would not contradict mind but emerge as one of its epiphenomena.

 

[Polymath257]

But see, there isn't any such evidence or you'd present it. As to your second claim, can you know or show me anything about matter without telling on your consciousness?

The problem is too much evidence. Here's an introduction:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-N...&keywords=kandel+principles+of+neural+science

 

[Polymath257]

But see, there isn't any such evidence or you'd present it. As to your second claim, can you know or show me anything about matter without telling on your consciousness?

The studies have gone back more than a century. From analysis of how high speed bullets through the brain affect consciousness, to how drugs (anesthetics and others) affect consciousness, to how neutrons conduct information, to how each of the senses works, to how we can use brain scans to read some thoughts now, to how to use our minds to control robotic limbs, to how the various aspects of the mid correspond to areas of the brain, etc, etc, etc ALL of this supports consciousness being a physical process in the brain.

 

[1137]

This is a positive assertion on your part. That puts the burden of proof upon you. What evidence do you have that backs this claim? It appears that you do not understand the nature of evidence. I do believe that I can post evidence to the contrary, but I will wait for you to support your claim first.

My positive assertion is that "materialism is faith based." My evidece is that "there is no evidence specifically supporting materialism." Do you have a refutation of this evidence? (Hint: it would be evidence for materialism.)

I do believe that he is patiently waiting for you to support your claims. Once more, you made your various claims first and people have repeatedly asked for more then mere assertion.

See above.

1. Psychotropic drugs alter consciousness.

2. There is no evidence of a consciousness independent of a physical brain.

3. Physical manipulation of the brain changes consciousness.

That's some pretty strong evidence that consciousness is tied to the physical brain.

1 and 3 are the same thing so I will address them at once. First of all the reverse is also true, mental events can cause changes to the brain. Second, a correlation isn't necessarily a causation. And third, we would still expect to see this in both Dualism and Idealism, so it's not actually evidence for any of them specifically .

2. Gods/ghosts/demons/astral bodies/ndes/obes/etc... Nope, none at all

I'm an atheist, but not a materialist. I am agnostic regarding the fundamental nature of reality: mind, matter, both (dualism), or neither (neutral monism). There is not only no need to take a position, there is no way to rule any of those options in or out.

We mostly see idealism from the theists and supernaturalists. They like to make their gods and spirits the fundamental reality, which I see as no more justified than any other option. As I said, we must remain agnostic on these matters until we can declare one correct with more than just the will to believe so.



Not to me.

Mind and matter contradict one another? What does that mean? That they are unrelated to one another?

You seem to be going the dualist route now. I think you want to stay with idealism - matter derives from mind. Matter would not contradict mind but emerge as one of its epiphenomena.

I am not sure what route I currently take actually.

 

[1137]

The problem is too much evidence. Here's an introduction:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-N...&keywords=kandel+principles+of+neural+science

Oh we can just post to books and stuff?

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw08sLeD19-4uKxlF1o3KQL3

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw230OTZ_rnN-Vr-CPr6lDyf

The studies have gone back more than a century. From analysis of how high speed bullets through the brain affect consciousness, to how drugs (anesthetics and others) affect consciousness, to how neutrons conduct information, to how each of the senses works, to how we can use brain scans to read some thoughts now, to how to use our minds to control robotic limbs, to how the various aspects of the mid correspond to areas of the brain, etc, etc, etc ALL of this supports consciousness being a physical process in the brain.

Yes, there is a correlation between what happens to the brain and what happens to the mind. This works with Dualism and Idealism as well, and literally all of these correlations you mention would be expected in those two ideologies also. So not evidence for materialism.

We also don't have a mechanism, it's the biggest problem for each ideology. Just the correlation. Plenty of thing correlate that aren't even related.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My positive assertion is that "materialism is faith based." My evidece is that "there is no evidence specifically supporting materialism." Do you have a refutation of this evidence? (Hint: it would be evidence for materialism.)

Your claim that there is no evidence is also a positive assertion. By making such a statement you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Your logical error is shifting the burden of proof:

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

See above.

Repeating your errors only makes you look worse.

1 and 3 are the same thing so I will address them at once. First of all the reverse is also true, mental events can cause changes to the brain. Second, a correlation isn't necessarily a causation. And third, we would still expect to see this in both Dualism and Idealism, so it's not actually evidence for any of them specifically .

I see that you still do not understand the nature of evidence. You are making the common creationist error of conflating evidence and proof. Once again you need to remember the legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it is evidence for the materialistic case. You are making the error of trying to demand a mathematical proof where that tool does not apply.

2. Gods/ghosts/demons/astral bodies/ndes/obes/etc... Nope, none at all

And all of those tend to disappear when investigated, at least in my experience.

I am not sure what route I currently take actually.

That might be the one good thing you have stated on this thread. By the way, I don't know of anyone that has positively identified as a materialist either. We are merely pointing out your errors in claiming that there is no evidence for it. Once you either post some evidence that supports your claim or admit that you have none then I will post evidence for the concept.

 

[1137]

Your claim that there is no evidence is also a positive assertion. By making such a statement you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Your logical error is shifting the burden of proof:

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

Lol it's alright, I know you don't have the evidence. But yeah, there's no reason to believe something without evidence so... Idk what to tell you? What else should we accept without evidence?

u see that you still do not understand the nature of evidence. You are making the common creationist error of conflating evidence and proof. Once again you need to remember the legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it is evidence for the materialistic case. You are making the error of trying to demand a mathematical proof where that tool does not apply.

Proof? If I believe X but nothing I can present specifically suggests X, why should I believe X? That's the most basic evidence. Look:

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

"hat which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proofsomething that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"

So again, if the "evidence" we put forth for X does not indicate X, suggest X is valid, prove X, give us reason to believe X, make X clear, or give a sign that X is true, why the hell should we think X is true?!

all of those tend to disappear when investigated, at least in my experience.

Interesting position. What else do you believe based on personal experience?

post some evidence that supports your claim or admit that you have none then I will post evidence for the concept.

Fine I concede, there's no evidence for materialism and so it shouldn't be accepted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol it's alright, I know you don't have the evidence. But yeah, there's no reason to believe something without evidence so... Idk what to tell you? What else should we accept without evidence?

You don't know any such thing. If you knew you could support your claims. You have not been able to do that yet. I offered to support mine once you showed some evidence for your claims or admitted that you have none. You have not presented any evidence at all and a claim that is made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.

Proof? If I believe X but nothing I can present specifically suggests X, why should I believe X? That's the most basic evidence. Look:

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

"hat which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proofsomething that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"

So again, if the "evidence" we put forth for X does not indicate X, suggest X is valid, prove X, give us reason to believe X, make X clear, or give a sign that X is true, why the hell should we think X is true?!

When you admit your error and quit trying to shift the burden of proof I will supply evidence. Until then the statement that you made but cannot support is refuted by your inability to support it. I am offering to supply evidence, you made a claim that requires evidence and yet you won't support it.

Interesting position. What else do you believe based on personal experience?

It is quite logical, unlike any of your claims. Please note that I qualify my claims when they need to be qualified.

Fine I concede, there's no evidence for materialism and so it shouldn't be accepted

Please, don't play games. You are back to your unsupported claim. Saying 'there is no evidence' is a positive assertion. You lose the argument every time you use this tactic after having been called out. But then it appears that you know you are spouting unsupportable nonsense.