Would it clarify to say that "material" would include things which aren't matter, eg, EM wave?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Luck has nothing to do with it.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Prior to the occurrence of particles, the concept of energy had no meaning.
Energy woo is just as much woo as the ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night.
Why do you think it was there?
/E: For that matter, why do you think there was a 'prior'?
Yes. The particles of E&M waves are photons.
Aside: I tend to not use the term 'matter' because it is rather ambiguous at this level. Calling anything subatomic 'matter' is problematic, unfortunately. A 'reasonable' definition might be anything that is composed primarily of up quarks, down quarks, and electrons.
Cite the experiment where that hypothesis was tested.
I think we've been over this before. Energy drove the inflation of the early universe, which occurred prior to pair production.
Hah!
I knew you'd catch me on that.
I was trying to avoid these complexities.
(I'm unqualified to even use the words.)
It would certainly confuse us about what the adjective "material" means.
In the sense of "the material world", it means things we can observe (measure), which would
include things like light, which most don't consider a material (something which seems solid).
So, anything we can't measure is not "material".
Things we can measure.....
Mass of a star
Distribution of dark matter
Acceleration of matter due to dark energy
Things we can't measure....
God's height
Number of angels on the head of a pin
Length of FSM's appendages
Things we can measure are of the material world.
The other stuff isn't.
Already did (in 1979).
With careful, intelligent, honest research. You appear not to read eg SciAm Mind or Science Daily to find out what's actually being learnt. If that's correct, why do you choose to leave yourself in the dark? If it's not, what's your criticism of that research?
It's one of those questions that can only be answered after you've assumed the answer. My assumptions are that a world exists external to the self and that our senses are capable of informing us about it.
If you didn't share those assumptions, you wouldn't be posting here.
Materialism has become the dominant paradigm not least because of a lack of alternatives reasoned from good evidence.
I strongly disagree with this. Materialism is the end product of skeptical and reasoned enquiry, and it is constantly confirmed as research continues.
In the course of examining nature, science comes across problems all the time ─ the expressions 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' refer to problems, not answers, for example. These require an open mind to solve, in the formation and testing of hypotheses that might shed light.
What procedures alternative to (skeptical, rational, honest, evidence-based) science would you like to see used in these enquiries?
Or in any other area of reasoned enquiry?
My late wife was head of her department in a major hospital (and a member of the brain injury team) 1993-2006 and she is my authority for telling you that the wellbeing of the patient ALWAYS includes mental wellbeing.
WHAT immaterial things?
I don't think it's dangerous at all. Rather it's the road by which we find out more and more about the brain and its functions. But even were it dangerous, your problem is that on all the available evidence and with great consistency, it's true.
In maths we can imagine eg n-spaces, and many other 'mathematical objects' which as far as we know are never found in reality. So what? They're still useful.
And what's an example of a 'logical and mathematical truth' which is more or less subjective and fabricated? I'm interested to know what you actually mean here.
Eh? Quoi? ¿Che? What's an example of 'relative logic'?
If you mean that a solid grounding in both the arts and the sciences should be a good part of any education, no argument from me.
I've never heard of them. What are they? Can you refer me to articles in reputable journals of science that explain them?
Pretty much, though not hard determinism since we think quantum randomness is genuinely random and uncaused and can itself be a cause.
Of course, those who believe in an omnipotent omniscient god have already embraced determinism, since they can never depart even by the width of an atom from what that god knew, well before they were born, they were going to do, think, say.
And perhaps you can tell me what you replace determinism with? How does a brain ─ or just this once, a mind, if you prefer ─ reach decisions other than by the processes built into it of whose functions the (conscious) mind is not aware? If you say that's not the result of chains of cause and effect (and, perhaps, quantum randomness), what is it the result of?
Wow! You seriously misunderstand both brain function and determinism.
Not so.
They're the product of our brain functions, and our brain functions are physical. Can't get more real than that.
What 'hard science that can benefit humanity' are you referring to? Life-fields? As 'hard science' they'll be in the reputable journals, then, surely?
The material world instead of what, exactly?
Last edited:
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Yes. Though it was something I posted in reply to the original post.
There is no "neglect of the mind", "lack of skepticism" or anything about "life fields" which if discovered could be completely materialistic hence nothing that would interfere with the baseline of most sets of materialistic or other monistic beliefs.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Actually this is the way you have been acting in regards atheism and materialism. Ignoring legitimate criticism and forging ahead with your strict views on these subjects. You are taking materialists to be close minded based on preconceptions that you don't let go of to examine the why's and how's if they conflict with what you have decided on. Materialists are far more open minded and mixed in their opinions then you expect.
As I have not seen this confirmation or what has already been done, I either have a choice to believe you on your word or not. Since there is nothing to confirm you are right, I will take it that you are probably wrong given that you seem to have reached views that don't really seem to match what I've seen of materialism and you are not providing anything to change that.
At the time of Planck's discovery classical physics had reached a dead end in explanatory power of it's current paradigm. It was not the death of materialism or indeed something that would in the end shake it's baseline despite enthusiasm of some of the pioneers.
I heartily recommend this title if you are interested in the context of that quote:
Quantum Generations:
A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century
Helge Kragh
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Can we trust the senses when they experience something that isn't there?
Obviously. The mind isn't magic, though. It's physical and can be easily manipulated physically.
The subjective symptoms are from physical stimuli, though.
How does logic lead to objective truth? Only objective data leads to objective truth.
That's a chemistry and biology issue, not some mystical thing.
No, biology can.
Why not? Learning how something actually works means we can exploit that knowledge. Ben Franklin didn't need to assume lightning was magical to think up lightning rods.
Because knowing something is material doesn't equate to "we are powerless to change it". Do you never season food? That's changing something physical, right?
To ignorance.
Even electrons have mass.
I agree, though I would still consider it "material". Culture wires the brain during development and maturation. People physically doing physical things physically changed a person's makeup.
Indeed. I'm a materialistic theist. I see no reason to inject "magic" into anything.
It could.
You have three apples.
You have one pile.
You have one type of fruit.
You have zero oranges.
Etc, etc....