How to prove?

[ecco]

It has been shown we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Just google "materialism debunked".

So I Googled "materialism debunked". What came up?
Four youtube videos
An article about Dalton Trumbo and WW II
An article on capitalism / feudalism
A Chech PDF

That's the best you can do.

 

[exchemist]

It has been shown we do not live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. Just google "materialism debunked".

Since the observer in the Universe alters what is being observed which has been shown to trickle up to the macro level then the only logical conclusion, given the absence of proof of materialism, the true nature of the Universe is based on some type of subjective experience. Of course, there are so many ways to experience reality subjectively we need a good heuristic to wade through the silly superstitions and pick the best superstition that fits the data points we know to exist.

The problem with the scientific materialists is they do not believe they have a dogma. They believe the axioms and assumptions making up their dogma are absolute truths that cannot be question.

To answer your question the best way is to lead by example. If spirituality is all that it is cracked up to be then people who have a strong enthusiasm will draw other people to their way of thinking by example.

"Proven" is the wrong word. You cannot prove a dogma's axioms or assumptions as being true. A dogma's axioms and assumptions are accepted as being true without any proof. That is what makes them assumptions. Axioms and assumptions are choices not decisions based on proof. Once a dogma's assumptions have been established, only then can assertions be proven true or false.

Are you sure you do not mean "determinism debunked"? Materialism is not remotely the same thing as determinism.

 

[ecco]

Since the observer in the Universe alters what is being observed which has been shown to trickle up to the macro level then the only logical conclusion, given the absence of proof of materialism, the true nature of the Universe is based on some type of subjective experience.

Here comes the woo.

Woo has been around since people acquired the ability to speak. The latest versions take a little bit of science and expand on it with pseudo-science to come up with a big pile of woo. The woosters use the little kernel of scientific truth and try to imply that their interpretations have real meaning. They don't.

You based your "logical conclusion" primarily on pseudoscientific woo and what? - "the absence of proof of materialism"?

 

[ecco]

...

If created, then a creative realm is probable to exist.

The experience of being alive does not fit the box its in.

Subjective introspection without preconclusions.

Non locality exists. Where's the bridge between the particles? Instant effect. Perhaps an omnipresent force. Definetly not a wormhole.

Qualities of being exist that are non physical concepts, such as love, loyalty, reason, memory, peace, joy.

Flip a coin!

Post a bunch of nonsensical sentences.

 

[ecco]

Interesting.

How do I go about demonstrating to others that I like the taste of honeydew melon better than cantaloupe?

Why would anyone care?

 

[exchemist]

Here comes the woo.

Woo has been around since people acquired the ability to speak. The latest versions take a little bit of science and expand on it with pseudo-science to come up with a big pile of woo. The woosters use the little kernel of scientific truth and try to imply that their interpretations have real meaning. They don't.

You based your "logical conclusion" primarily on pseudoscientific woo and what? - "the absence of proof of materialism"?

Yes this looks like something close to Quantum Woo, though technically I suppose in this case it refers to the observer effect, which is not just a quantum phenomenon.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why would anyone care?

Unless you can demonstrate why it matters if anyone cares or not, your question is entirely irrelevant.

 

[ecco]

I can describe and tell you how delicious chocolate is but until you taste it for yoursel you will not know. Same with spiritual truth.

I can taste chocolate. There are sensors on my tongue that evolved to do that. These sensors send signals to my brain...

There are no sensory organs to "taste" spiritual truth so, no, it is not the same.

Billions of years of evolution have given us organs to taste, see, hear, feel, smell. Nature never thought it was useful or necessary to devise an organ to sense spiritual truth. If a billion years of evolution didn't bring it about, it's probably not necessary or even desirable.

 

[ecco]

How do I go about demonstrating to others that I like the taste of honeydew melon better than cantaloupe?

Why would anyone care?

Unless you can demonstrate why it matters if anyone cares or not, your question is entirely irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's hilarious.

Nice deflection.

 

[Polymath257]

It's interesting you chose an emotional evaluation of what I said. That's not relying on rational propositional truths. Do you believe that your emotions are entirely subject to your rational thoughts? That's what I hear you stating you hold as the ideal, to find "objective" truth to validate subjective feelings, but yet your response was not from a place of rationality, but from a feeling statement "cold".

Hmm...I thought we were talking about the subjective aspect at that point.

You do realize that "comparing notes" is in fact an inter-subjective experience? You have two, or multiple subjective individuals sharing their subjective thoughts with others subjective thoughts and opinions, and coming to some form of mutual agreements based on shared subjective perceptions, thoughts, ideas, frameworks, systems, etc?

In other words, it's a somewhat rather closed group-system of reality, that those of that tribe happen to have developed a common language around a set of shared cultural perspectives that creates a shared reality that they all agree on? This pretty much defines all cultures and the relative nature of truth.

Which is why it is necessary to have people from as many different backgrounds and with as many different ideas as possible to suggest testable alternatives and possible gaps in logic.

Objectivity *is* having a public means of testing.

No, truths are not objective. They're shared subjective points of reference and a mutual agreement of that particular basic view of reality. There is no such thing as an "objective truth", only an agreement with other subjects trying to create a common language and point of view in order to share the same space together of what the hell all this mess out there means.

Well, that's what it means to be objective: that it is possible to have a public means of testing.

The only way for that to happen is to set aside all language, and all thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. This is a state of mindlessness, as the Buddhists might call it. Very few people, do this. We always colorize reality with an idea of our mind. The only way out of this, is meditation. Is that what you say you are trying to do? If so, I agree with that. If you are saying you're trying to be objective in thinking about it, I know that will fail.

Strange. So most people don't just experience? They always add language to it? Sure, as a means of communicating with others, but internally also?

I guess I just do this naturally. It doesn't seem difficult or problematic. The hard part, for me, is putting experiences into language to be able to communicate them to others.

You see, I don't understand this. "Fun ride for awhile". If something has actual meaning to you, it's not mastubetory. It's not a thrill of the moment. It has significance. It has lasting, deeper meaning.

Well, for me, it has meaning only if it is true. To find out it is merely symbolic or that it is not 'real' makes the experience vacuous.

A symbol is a hook for that deeper sense of meaning to have some "object" for the mind to look to that points to that deeper, or transcendent meaning to. It gives it a face, that is "supernatural", in the sense that it's not just a rock or some common object laying around. It is imbued with meaning. It holds things like hope, love, truth, promise, and all these intangible, subjective truths that constitute pretty much every waking moment of our days on some deep subjective background level. In other words, our actual lived realities.

OK, so I don't get why symbols, in that sense, are needed. Just have the experience. Why move the experience to something else and thereby negate it?

But reality is what you are choosing it to be. Just like it was reality for you before when you believed what you did, but now decided you don't believe anymore. And the same thing will be tomorrow, when you realize that what you believe today, no longer fits reality as you see it then.

No, reality is NOT what I choose it to be. That is the whole point. Reality is there no matter what I tell myself or what I want. It is independent of what I believe. That is the whole point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me attempt to explain it using another analogy...the experience of walking on the moon.

Twelve people have done it. Those twelve have seen the moon and felt and interacted with the moon from an entirely different perspective than the other 7.53 billion other people that exist. Each part of that experience, the reduced gravity, the feeling of walking through the moon dust in their space boots, looking over the moon's horizon, the view of the earth from the perspective of standing on the moon is a truth to the twelve that experienced it.

While others can relate to the experiences based on rationalizations, they will never know the truth of the experience until they experience it themselves.

Then there are those that say the moon landing was a hoax; that no one has walked on the moon; that the moon landing is a lie.

You don't need to have walked on the Moon to verify that it exists.

You don't need to have walked on the Moon even to verify that people have walked on the Moon.

 

[Polymath257]

Would you say that your personal experiences that no one has experienced besides you are true to you? Think back to the day you married your wife. No one else had that experience. It's exclusive to you. While you can attach other adjectives to the experience, is not not true as well?

No, I would not say they were 'true' to me. I would say they were 'meaningful' to me. To me, there is a HUGE difference between 'true' and 'meaningful'.

I find it interesting that you would attach the term truth to belief. Being inherently skeptical by nature, I struggle to do this. I need to see some sort of evidence to label something to be true.

Yes, not all beliefs are true. But all truth is belief of some sort. And yes, it takes testing, logic, and all the other techniques to show that something is likely to be true.

 

[WalterTrull]

I speculate......some of us will survive the last breath
I speculate further....
we have discipline and hierarchy in this life
and there will be greater discipline and Hierarchy
in the next

Possible. I suppose understanding that there is gravity is a form of discipline and hierarchy too.

 

[dfnj]

Here comes the woo.

Woo has been around since people acquired the ability to speak. The latest versions take a little bit of science and expand on it with pseudo-science to come up with a big pile of woo. The woosters use the little kernel of scientific truth and try to imply that their interpretations have real meaning. They don't.

You based your "logical conclusion" primarily on pseudoscientific woo and what? - "the absence of proof of materialism"?

I guess a skunk can't smell his own stink. Please explain what part you do NOT understand that we do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism?

Your comment on what I am saying is woo when you have nothing but fairy tale beliefs with materialism.

 

[dfnj]

Are you sure you do not mean "determinism debunked"? Materialism is not remotely the same thing as determinism.

Hard determinism in a computer model type sense:

Deterministic finite automaton - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

View attachment 27612
What if it’s something like this and they’re just describing it differently? I imagine it’s even harder when you have little to which to compare it. Cultural experience could explain the differences in description when people are trying to explain something difficult to describe.

In that case, it is an ambiguous figure. it can be interpreted as either a duck or a rabbit. Of course, it is neither. It is a bunch of ink on paper, or a bunch of dark places on a screen, or even a bunch of electrons acting a certain way.

Our brains do not always interpret what we sense correctly. This is a wonderful example of where our brains get confused.

Now, is the claim that spirituality is *always* an ambiguous figure? Is it actually impossible to get at a 'truth'? Or are you saying that our brains will always interpret it wrong no matter what we do?

 

[dingdao]

I think that science has come to some very definite conclusions about NDE's.

Other then a few sympathetic books and sites, most science comes to an existential conclusion. It's all in your mind.
Ashoka, c 250 bce, went from being a tyrant whose favorite torture was pouring molten copper down a victim's throat. To a Buddhist king-monk after a battle. I'll chalk that one up to an NDE.

 

[exchemist]

Hard determinism in a computer model type sense:

Deterministic finite automaton - Wikipedia

That is quite different from determinism and far narrower. More about determinism here: Determinism - Wikipedia

Determinism is also shown by modern physics to be a doubtful worldview to hold.

(Neither is the same as materialism of course, but as you were not after all referring to that, it is not relevant here.)

 

[PureX]

To most people, the idea of objectivity is what we can all agree we observe. So a consensus of what is observed, as opposed to what an individual thinks he or she observes.

But I suppose that if you want to speak of humanity having a kind of collective subjectivity, then human "objectivity" can be said to be subjective at that level, seeing as we have no means of getting outside our shared human experience of the world.

My point would be that each of us "observe" subjectively because we are the subjects doing the observing, and our observations are being determined by what we can, and what we expect, to see. Our very nature is a bias. There is no "objective reality" that we will ever be able to apprehend, because to apprehend anything, we (the subjects of the subjectivism referred to as "subjective reality") are doing the apprehending. And we cannot escape ourselves. So that "objective reality" is a perpetual myth that we humans imagine exists, but can never actually experience, ourselves. And science doesn't overcome this limitation because science is a process created by us, and evaluated by us, according to our conceptual expectations. It is as subjective as everything else about us, is.