Philosophical Materialism

[Storm]

Energy is just the vibration of matter and consciousness is actually energy. Consciousness = brain waves = energy.

So, really, you don't have 3 separate substances in your paradigm, they are all the same thing.

Um, no. They're all the same thing in YOUR paradigm. Please do not presume to correct me on my own beliefs.

I honestly don't know much about it, though I saw a video of a Taoist master use chi energy to make the temperature of his hands exceedingly hot and proceeded to incinerate a newspaper.

Ah, well. If you're not that familiar, it makes a poor example.

In Panpsychism, there is no matter. Everything is mind/consciousness.

That makes as little sense to me as materialism.

 

[Storm]

Well, I have no intention of leading your thread in a direction you didn't intend, so I just wanted to make sure I understood your intended definition.

Even if a definition is provided, it may not provide the whole picture. I've seen people, for instance, assert that only matter exists, but what they really meant was that only the basic physical things exist because they were not all that familiar with physics. Materialism itself is a very old philosophy, and the concepts of matter being interchangeable with energy (convertible from one to the other), spacetime being a dynamic component to the system, and all sorts of quantum fields and such are only 100 years old or so.

So sometimes it can be hard to know what people mean. Many early materialists defined the two things that existed as matter and void. If materalism, in light of recent scientific understanding replaces "matter" with "matter/energy" and "void" with "spacetime and fields", then I think their original intent remains intact. I think that's why the terms can be used interchangeably sometimes. I wager that finding current people that believe that literally only matter exists is a pretty big hurdle.


Information shared between intelligent social animals.


Well, I'm not a biologist or psychologist, so I can't go into all the tiny details. But the placebo effect seems basically to be the mind affecting the body, much like it always does.

The brain/body system is enormously complex. The brain can coordinate the release of various hormones and chemicals that have dramatic effects on the body including the brain itself. Certain chemicals make us happier, more energetic, have a stronger immune system, faster healing, and so forth. The placebo effect is basically the brain putting itself in the optimal position for healing by having the body do as much of the work it can. When the opposite is the case, and people have various mental hang-ups about living, healing, and so forth, the brain body system is not operating at is optimal level.

Depending on the order that it's in, software can affect hardware. I mean, a few weeks ago at work, one of our machines damaged part of itself by causing a short circuit. It was set up so that it can change the flow of electricity, and includes some states that can potentially short circuit itself, but it's not programmed to go to those states. But a bug caused it to, and damage occurred. The software was just the hardware controlling aspects of itself, and it led to damage.

The brain is interesting in that it has a huge control loop unlike most of our computers. The brain can affect itself. There's no reason why our computers can't do the same if they are designed that way, but the complexity and technology requirements are high. For instance, many things are made by machines (computers), including computers themselves. so hardware can and does lead to software that then makes more hardware.

I think I understand. I still don't agree, but at least I have a better sense of where you're coming from.

 

[Penumbra]

I think I understand. I still don't agree, but at least I have a better sense of where you're coming from.

If I may ask, which aspect in particular do you disagree with?

 

[Tathagata]

Um, no. They're all the same thing in YOUR paradigm.

It is not my paradigm, it is empirical fact.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Law-of-Vibration&id=2553675

Please do not presume to correct me on my own beliefs.

What do you expect in a forum called "Religious Debates"? Debating usually involves countering or refuting the opponents beliefs.

That makes as little sense to me as materialism.

I find that odd given that your a Panentheist whom of which are sympathetic to the Pantheist notion that the whole Universe is conscious. The Conscious Universe hypothesis is the same as Panpsychism.

(I know Naturalist Pantheists don't share that view, but many Pantheists believe in a Conscious Universe.)


.

 

[Storm]

If I may ask, which aspect in particular do you disagree with?

Materialism.

Basically, I'm still not convinced it's true, but at least you're making sense.

 

[Storm]

It is not my paradigm, it is empirical fact.



What do you expect in a forum called "Religious Debates"? Debating usually involves countering or refuting the opponents beliefs.

Arguing I'm wrong is one thing. Telling me I really agree with you is another entirely.

I find that odd given that your a Panentheist whom of which are sympathetic to the Pantheist notion that the whole Universe is conscious. The Conscious Universe hypothesis is the same as Panpsychism.

(I know Naturalist Pantheists don't share that view, but many Pantheists believe in a Conscious Universe.)

I do believe the universe is conscious. I do not believe that mind gives rise to matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Allow me to be more precise: it can cause it to go into remission as long as the illusion of treatment is maintained.

If it can, this is news to me.

However, even if this was true, I'm not sure how this would be a problem for materialism. If the mind is purely a material phenomenon, then its effects are material... no contradiction there that I can see.

 

[Penumbra]

Materialism.

Basically, I'm still not convinced it's true, but at least you're making sense.

Heh.

Well what I mean is, if you can identify specific points you are in disagreement with, I can try to elaborate on them or provide other examples.

 

[Tathagata]

Arguing I'm wrong is one thing. Telling me I really agree with you is another entirely.

I didn't say that you agree with me. The facts that I presented do not lead to the conclusion of panpsychism nor any other paradigm of reality.

I do believe the universe is conscious.

Ok, here's the part where I will tell you that you agree with me.

(Though, I will point out that if you do believe this notion, it is incompatible with Panentheism.)

I do not believe that mind gives rise to matter.

And neither do I.

 

[Storm]

If it can, this is news to me.

Well, my google-fu is weak tonight, so I'll cede the specific point. The particulars of the disease in question weren't what I was getting at, anyway.

However, even if this was true, I'm not sure how this would be a problem for materialism. If the mind is purely a material phenomenon, then its effects are material... no contradiction there that I can see.

Penumbra has been most helpful in that regard.

Heh.

Well what I mean is, if you can identify specific points you are in disagreement with, I can try to elaborate on them or provide other examples.

No, that's what I mean when I say you're making sense. You've helped show me that at least it's coherent.

 

[Storm]

(Though, I will point out that if you do believe this notion, it is incompatible with Panentheism.)

No, it really isn't.

 

[Tathagata]

No, it really isn't.

Ok, you said you believe the Universe is conscious. However, presuming that "God" is "consciousness," Panentheism is the belief that "everything is IN God," not "everything IS God." It could be the case that the Universe is encompassed in a "consciousness" you call God, but it's not the case that the actual Universe itself is also conscious.

If the Universe itself is conscious and it's inside of another consciousness called "God," then what's the distinction between the consciousness that is the Universe, and the consciousness that is God?

Basically, you can't have a consciousness inside a consciousness, we just call it one thing because it's one monogamous substance: consciousness.


.

 

[Storm]

Ok, you said you believe the Universe is conscious. However, presuming that "God" is "consciousness,"

I never said that "'God is 'consciousness.'" If you'd like to know about my beliefs, asking questions beats assumption every time.

 

[Walkntune]

Energy is just the vibration of matter and consciousness is actually energy. Consciousness = brain waves = energy.

So, really, you don't have 3 separate substances in your paradigm, they are all the same thing.

I believe the opposite and that matter is really just a vibration of energy.

 

[Tathagata]

I never said that "'God is 'consciousness.'"

I know that and I never once claimed you did. That's kind of why said "presuming that "God" is "consciousness" to indicate that I was making a presumption. My presumption is based on the common understanding of Panentheism.

If you'd like to know about my beliefs, asking questions beats assumption every time.

Yes, I would like to know what your alternate version of Panentheism asserts.

.

 

[Meow Mix]

To kick off the debate, how do materialists explain the placebo effect? If consciousness is simply an emergent property of matter, how can it influence matter?

I'm not a materialist but it does seem plain to me that consciousness is indeed an emergent property of matter.

Our brains control all kinds of things about us such as our hormones, breathing, heartbeat, temperature regulation, all that -- it's not surprising to me that different states of awareness could subconsciously be triggering different modes in the brain's control of such systems just like our thoughts can to an extent control our heartbeat (beating fast by thinking of danger or sex, slowing with meditation etc.)

 

[Tathagata]

I believe the opposite and that matter is really just a vibration of energy.

That means exactly the same thing. Though, I suppose it gives the impression of primacy of energy as opposed to matter, which, I would actually be inclined to agree with this notion.

.

 

[Storm]

Yes, I would like to know what your alternate version of Panentheism asserts.

I follow the (not uncommon) model which holds the physical universe to be God's body. As someone cleverer than I dubbed it, I worship "the living Godiverse." I've taken this model and run with it, though. My theological minutia, such as the three elements, should not be taken as typical.

 

[Tathagata]

I follow the (not uncommon) model which holds the physical universe to be God's body.

Ok, but what IS God under this paradigm? Is he not consciousness? Is he the "life-force" mentioned in your "three elements"? Or is he a physical body?

 

[Storm]

Ok, but what IS God under this paradigm? Is he not consciousness? Is he the "life-force" mentioned in your "three elements"? Or is he a physical body?

The synergistic sum of all three. The complete being, body, mind, and chi.