Is there anything outside the material universe?

[WalterTrull]

I am absolutely convinced women exist In an independent reality from men. Larry Krauss the famous atheist scientist got fired from arizona state for becoming influenced by that reality!!!! Magic got him in trouble and as such men need to be careful about magical thinking.

Sorry, not following.

 

[David T]

Sorry, not following.

are you suddenly proposing you understand women,? hahaha!!! Oh my goodness now that's funny. Unless you are gay, then yea that makes sense, but then I don't understand you. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!! I worded that funny had to edit. View attachment 20856

 

[WalterTrull]

are you suddenly proposing you understand women,? hahaha!!! Oh my goodness now that's funny. Unless you are gay, then yea that makes sense, but then I don't understand you. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!! I worded that funny had to edit.

Just didn't get the connection to women. OK, I see "magic". My hunch is that was where you were going.

 

[Skwim]

There is no material universe here at all.

So how about describing this materiality that the universe is not.

.

 

[Skwim]

5. Paranormal events not explainable in a materialist framework

What kind of paranormal events do you have in mind; moving books on a table with one's mind, reading the thoughts of others, ghosts banging pots and pans in the kitchen?

.

 

[David T]

Just didn't get the connection to women. OK, I see "magic". My hunch is that was where you were going.

I was attempting to be funny ,in a goofy RF kind of way then you forced me to literally pull up Seinfeld which actually is literally funny!

 

[WalterTrull]

I was attempting to be funny ,in a goofy RF kind of way then you forced me to literally pull up Seinfeld which actually is literally funny!

Oh, my bad.

 

[WalterTrull]

So how about describing this materiality that the universe is not. .

Sure, we describe it, interact with it, build it, destroy it, continually, but all mentally.

 

[George-ananda]

What kind of paranormal events do you have in mind; moving books on a table with one's mind, reading the thoughts of others, ghosts banging pots and pans in the kitchen?

.

All the above and other paranormal things indicate more than the material/physical.

 

[tayla]

I propose that there is no physical realm.

The universe is the physical realm.

 

[tayla]

There is no material universe here at all.

Please explain.

 

[tayla]

5. Paranormal events not explainable in a materialist framework

Yes.

 

[tayla]

It took me a long time to come to terms with that simple last sentence about expecting other people to adopt opinions. Its not always that people don't listen or won't listen. Often they just cannot. There is a lot of truth to saying that people only hear messages that they receive within themselves. An example is empathy. If I have no common experience with someone else's suffering then it is difficult for me to empathize. If I have shared the experience then I can listen to them, and they can listen to me. Otherwise there is some kind of idea wall. To discuss an idea you must be able to produce the idea within yourself, perhaps using some clues but nevertheless it has to partly become your own, or you cannot discuss it. In some way you have to be able to mirror it in your mind to meaningfully communicate.

We should emphasize on RF that disagreements needn't be so confrontational. I think if everyone mentioned it to remind people often, perhaps it would permanently change the culture and tone.

 

[Ponder This]

Is there anything outside the material universe?

Seems to me there are things not contained within the material physical universe and, therefore, not explained by science. Some examples:

1. The subjective experience of consciousness.
2. The initial conditions of the universe that allows it to support complex chemical biological life.
3. Sense of moral attributes such as goodness, beauty, love.
4. The presence of a divine creator God.

I propose that everything not contained within the physical realm resides within the spiritual realm. Such things as: beauty, concepts, consciousness, dreams, emotions, God, goodness, hallucinations, holiness, hope, ideas and concepts, life, memories, mind, morality, reason, souls, spirits, symbols, visions, will, and etc.

I also propose that nothing can be proved about the structure or function of the spiritual realm. There is no "spiritual" method corresponding to the scientific method. Therefore, all revealed religion and all beliefs about the spiritual realm are mere opinions. And there is no reason at all to expect anyone to adopt our opinions.

5. Paranormal events not explainable in a materialist framework

We can add many more things to the list of things not contained in the material universe:

6. the value of money
7. the laws of men
8. works of fiction
9. philosophy

There are many things which do not have physical substance that can be evaluated objectively. Economics is a great example of how something that lacks physical substance (the value of money) can be examined objectively. It may be possible to objectively examine the subjective consciousness. Perhaps the only thing on the our short list that may have problems being evaluated objectively is works of fiction.

I agree that we can't really force other people to have the same beliefs that we have. We can't force people to place the same value on money either.

 

[blü 2]

Is there anything outside the material universe?

Things that don't exist materially exist only in imagination / mentation.

So only material things are real, and nothing real exists immaterially.

If anyone can provide an objective test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary, then I'll agree I'm wrong.

not explained by science.

Nothing else is capable of explaining them.

The subjective experience of consciousness.

Consciousness in the sense of general awareness is simply the waking state of the brain, though its strict description is a work in progress. The leading theory about consciousness in the sense of active self-awareness, subvocalization, and so on, is the >Global Workspace hypothesis<.

One of the things your brain does is respond to sensory stimuli by the release of chemicals eg adrenalin to make you jump, giving rise to the sensation of a fright, testosterone for sexual stimuli (words, or sight, or touch, or smell &c) with physical consequences, >the chemicals of love<, and so on and so on. These are the generators of your 'subjective experience' and the net will inform you further if you ask.

The initial conditions of the universe that allows it to support complex chemical biological life.

I don't see the mystery. Biochemistry is a branch of chemistry. The universe resolved into its present physical system, so there was always going to be chemistry. Life isn't magic. Evolution isn't magic.

Sense of moral attributes such as goodness, beauty, love.

A very human view. The morality of other social creatures will prefer their wellbeing over ours, just as ours prefers us over them.

The origins of human morality are evolutionary. In all societies we find the moral tendencies of child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group and a sense of self-worth or virtue through self-denial. And like many, perhaps all, social creatures, we have mirror neurons which help us identify with the actions and emotions of other humans.

The rest comes from the individual's culture and experience.

The presence of a divine creator God.

Such a being seems to be imaginary, since [he] never says or does anything. Nor does [he] have a definition such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether [he] was God or not ─ which doesn't matter for imaginary beings, but means that no one knows what they're talking about when they talk of God having objective existence.

I also propose that nothing can be proved about the structure or function of the spiritual realm.

Then you agree that the 'spiritual realm' exists only as something imagined in individual brains, whose origins are stories told by others.

 

[sayak83]

Please explain.

The materiality is a specific mode in which the monistic substrate that underlies all that is manifests under certain conditions. At other times its manifestation is through immaterial modes like qualia, subjective luminosity etc. , at yet other times it manifests as the abstract world of logic and math. So on.

 

[tayla]

The materiality is a specific mode in which the monistic substrate that underlies all that is manifests under certain conditions. At other times its manifestation is through immaterial modes like qualia, subjective luminosity etc. , at yet other times it manifests as the abstract world of logic and math. So on.

I define the physical realm as the universe which can be studied via the scientific method. It doesn't matter to me whether is is something or other such as you suggest. I doubt there is any way to prove things such as that without divine revelation. Anyway, materialist science is correct, no matter what it is operating upon. Why not just call it the material physical universe?

 

[sayak83]

I define the physical realm as the universe which can be studied via the scientific method. It doesn't matter to me whether is is something or other such as you suggest. I doubt there is any way to prove things such as that without divine revelation. Anyway, materialist science is correct, no matter what it is operating upon. Why not just call it the material physical universe?

The scientific method is,in principle, generally applicable and is not constrained to what is usually called material world.

 

[Ponder This]

Things that don't exist materially exist only in imagination / mentation.

So only material things are real, and nothing real exists immaterially.

If anyone can provide an objective test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary, then I'll agree I'm wrong.

I find we always end up having interesting discussions and this got me thinking. So...

If we have two chairs in a room, it constitutes an instantiation of 'two'. This quality of being 'two' exists independently of an observer (a living brain). It doesn't stop being two chairs if living brains aren't around to think about them. That means that 'two' passes an 'objective test' for being 'real' (X objectively exists if X exists independently the concept of X in living brains). But 'two' isn't a material thing; it's an 'immaterial' thing (because it is the essence or embodiment of a specified quality rather than being a physical thing itself such as a chair).

'Two' is also a concept that exists in our imaginations (just like 'chair' and 'star'). 'Two' has a 'real counterpart' because we can see instances of 'two'. 'chair' and 'star' have 'real counterparts' because we can see instances of 'chair' and 'star'. So 'two' does not exist 'only in mentation'; 'two' is not 'imaginary'.

What do you think? Am I missing something? It seems to me that you have to acknowledge material things in terms of the qualities that they possess. I know we talked before about mathematics being conceptual, but that's because math is done on imaginary objects in our minds (I can count unicorns or sheep or gods). But math can also be done on real material things (things with 'real counterparts'). Those processes do not require our living brains to exist. Therefore, they must be 'real'.

 

[1137]

Tell that to the hammer and the nail.

How do you know they're mind-independent?

1. All present evidence points to consciousness being a process in the brain, which is material.

This is... not correct.

Thomas Nagel - What's It Like To Be A Bat? : https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University - “So what Lanza says in this book [that life and consciousness are fundamental] is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it—or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private—furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!’” Robert Lanza » Biocentrism / Robert Lanza’s Theory of Everything

Mind-Body Dualism : Mind–body dualism | philosophy

Mind-Body Idealism : Idealism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2. Life developed billions of years after the 'initial conditions' of the universe. Whether those conditions *could* be any different than they were is still an open question. Whether there is a larger multiverse with many universes is also an open question. To jump to a 'spiritual realm' is way premature.

I would say it is no more premature than jumping to some form of reductionism. It's true that things have evolved over billions of years, but it is also true that in only ~ 100,000 years of that 14 billion years - 00.714% of the entire existence of the universe - something has come to exist which is capable of going against, and separate from, whatever the material world is.

3. Yes, those are ideas in human minds, and are thereby physical processes in brains.

Assumption. Saying "the ideas of human minds ... are... physical processes in the brain" is the metaphysical conclusion that only matter exists, that mind reduces to matter and matter creates mind. This needs to be supported. You cannot support a position by restating the position.

4. A presence not demonstrated.

Idk about a "divine creator," but I see many reasons to believe in deities. To name 3:

1. Consciousness being something apart from the "natural world" of matter outside of minds.
2. Consistent experiences across thousands of cultures and hundreds of millions of people throughout all of human history.
3. Platonism implies Polytheism.

It's a particularly amusing idea being floated by beings who are currently quite physical. *rolls eyes*

Assumption. Saying "the ideas of human minds ... are... physical processes in the brain" is the metaphysical conclusion that only matter exists, that mind reduces to matter and matter creates mind. This needs to be supported. You cannot support a position by restating the position.

Sorry, but an opinion in a fringe science journal simply doesn't count.

That they also misunderstand quantum mechanics doesn't help their position.

Not necessarily. For example, see the quote above by Professor Henry. Many of the studies we have on quantum mechanics very clearly suggest that observation of some sort is required to actualize quantum potentials. Here are some resources to look into if you wish:

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Experiment suggests that reality doesn't exist until it is measured

The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics