Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not really,

The conscious mind works with impression not actual physical data. Subconsciously the brain creates the impression which is provided to consciousness. The subconscious deals with the actual physical data to provide the impression the feed to the conscious "self". What consciousness experiences is subjective impressions like emotions, colors, pain/pleasure.

It's like you have two somewhat distinct processes running. One, which I'm referring to as the sub-conscious. The other the conscious process. Conscious process is done by these impressions which may not correlate to any actual physical data. However it is derived from the subconscious which uses actual physical data. The subconscious brain creates these impressions to manipulate the conscious processes of the brain.

Your conscious "self" would be purposefully walled off from the physical data because it would be designed to process impressions instead of the actual data.

When you feel pain, that would be an impression the subconscious provides to manipulate you deal with a abnormality with the physical system.

The difficult part for the self is since it doesn't directly access the subconscious process which develop the impressions it has no understanding of that process.

This gives consciousness it's impression of a spiritual or non-physical nature.

Uh you say yourself thr consciousness does not cotrespond to physical data, it is then not material.

So now it is okay to accept the existence of things not physical, which kind of makes the standard objection to the spirit void by the same rules.

It is all sophistry, creationism works efficiently without a problem, and common discourse uses creationist logic already. Promises that you can make it work pale in comparison to actual practise of practically functional creationist philosophy.

 

[Laika]

One can also simply discard consciousness and beauty as part of the false view of spiritualism. Simply constrict oneself to normal matter of fact statements, instead of trying to contort what obviously belongs to the spiritual view.

True. But if Consciousness is a property of matter and a product of the Brain, all that we experience can be accepted in that view, without diminishing it's sense of beauty, since we only change the explanation of the cause rather than the effect itself.

Can you describe the supernatural by materialistic terms? What is conscious in relation to what you're (and other people who use the word here, it seems) talk about?

Consciousness is the result of the activity of the brain. The mind and the Brain are identical. This is a philosophical assumption rather than a scientifically proven fact; in fact ,even with a vast body of evidence, it would still always in part be an assumption because we can only know what we know. At our current level of knowledge, we are unable to know exactly how the Brain works. But this assumption is appropriate in so far as it open the Brain and the experience of consciousness to scientific study. To assume consciousness is otherwise is to make the argument that it is unknowable, since we can only know about what objectively exists in the material world. Even the most scientific atheism is still limited by human cognition, so it will always contain an element of uncertainty as a form of pragmatic atheism. Materialism is ultimately driven by the desire to turn knowledge into a source of power and freedom so that we can satisfy our needs. Really, this view is about making what could look like an accident, easy to reproduce as It would be a good thing if one day we could understand psychology to achieve inner or "spiritual" fulfillment.

I would be an absolute fool to try and describe the supernatural in materialistic terms, since it is so overwhelmingly diverse a body of experience and ideas. To be honest, I would end up making some really crude stereotypes which would be unfair to the fact that people have for thousands of years lived with the idea that their world is shared with unseen forces. It is also a subjective realm of feeling and intuition which language can only inadequately express. my general position would be that for lack of a better explanation people attribute the human quality of consciousness to our surroundings as the cause of phenomena. The supernatural could probably be divided into two groups; the observable, which must exist in dome sense and therefore have physical properties and can be scientifically understood, and the unobservable. The latter we could reasonably assume is an attempt to discover a motive force for existence, a "god of the gaps" if you will, when people were unable to find a material explanation. There is an act of faith that such an explanation is possible, but it is one which could have demonstrable results; in that sense materialism is superior to idealism or spiritualism since where idealists see accident, materialists search for necessity and cause.

 

[George-ananda]

It takes a broader view of what physical reality is capable of.

A 'spritualist' can take the same broad view of what physical reality is capable of.

It's really just claiming a supernatural or non-physical explanation is unnecessary to explain reality.

True. Materialism believes it can eventually explain everything in terms of the action of physical matter. Spiritualist believe there is more than physical matter needed to explain all of reality. There is the great divide between the two schools

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, for there to be a paranormal event there must be a human that OBSERVED it (or nobody would even know there was a paranormal event). It might be through their normal senses or an extra-sense. I saw a ghost means the ghost was observed.

According to the definition of "discern," a synonym for "observe" the observations must be observed through the senses.

 

[George-ananda]

According to the definition of "discern," a synonym for "observe" the observations must be observed through the senses.

How does that challenge what I said?. Paranormal phenomena is observed through the senses as I said.

 

[leibowde84]

How does that challenge what I said?. Paranormal phenomena is observed through the senses as I said.

That may or may not be the case. If you were a materialist, you would assume that supposed paranormal activities could merely be hallucinations, actually tricking the mind into thinking that they are observed by the senses, when, in actuality, they are just misfires in the brain.

 

[George-ananda]

That may or may not be the case. If you were a materialist, you would assume that supposed paranormal activities could merely be hallucinations, actually tricking the mind into thinking that they are observed by the senses, when, in actuality, they are just misfires in the brain.

YES, that is what the difference between the two schools is all about! Materialists would say ALL phenomena has material causes only.

You can be undecided between 'materialism' and 'spiritualism' but you can't be both has been my original point here.

 

[leibowde84]

YES, that is what the difference between the two schools is all about! Materialists would say ALL phenomena has material causes only.

And, I agree with that possibility.

 

[George-ananda]

And, I agree with that possibility.

That would still put you as 'undecided' As you agree that 'materialism' is a possibility. As you also said God (not made of physical matter) is a possibility.

 

[Nakosis]

Uh you say yourself thr consciousness does not cotrespond to physical data, it is then not material.

I'd refer you to the next thread below by
Red Economist

So now it is okay to accept the existence of things not physical, which kind of makes the standard objection to the spirit void by the same rules.

I'm just saying a materialist needn't reject things like beauty. It fact it'd be pretty silly for them to do so. On a conscious level I think we all understand the experience of beauty, just that they need not look outside the realm of materialism for an explanation.

It is all sophistry, creationism works efficiently without a problem, and common discourse uses creationist logic already. Promises that you can make it work pale in comparison to actual practise of practically functional creationist philosophy.

Yes, with out further definitive research and data it's a lot of theoretical explanations. A materialist would assume it is just a matter of time when additional information is gathered and can be used to prove or redefine the theories.

Creationism has to work with the assumption of authority without the due diligence that would normally be expected in scientific research before accepting that authority.

 

[Nakosis]

A 'spritualist' can take the same broad view of what physical reality is capable of.


True. Materialism believes it can eventually explain everything in terms of the action of physical matter. Spiritualist believe there is more than physical matter needed to explain all of reality. There is the great divide between the two schools

Software in a computer can create a non physical experience of reality because of the way our brain works. Yet this non-physical experience is dependent on the hardware that produces it.

The only divide is maybe the denial of the necessity of the hardware which produces this non-physical experience?

I can tell you right now that without the computer hardware there is no non-physical experience of reality possible, in computer terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'd refer you to the next thread below by
Red Economist



I'm just saying a materialist needn't reject things like beauty. It fact it'd be pretty silly for them to do so. On a conscious level I think we all understand the experience of beauty, just that they need not look outside the realm of materialism for an explanation.



Yes, with out further definitive research and data it's a lot of theoretical explanations. A materialist would assume it is just a matter of time when additional information is gathered and can be used to prove or redefine the theories.

Creationism has to work with the assumption of authority without the due diligence that would normally be expected in scientific research before accepting that authority.

Saying beauty is caused by material does not make beauty part of materialism. The beauty itself must be material.

 

[Nakosis]

Saying beauty is caused by material does not make beauty part of materialism. The beauty itself must be material.

It allows a materialist to explain the existence of beauty.

I don't see it as a problem unless it being claimed the origin of this experience is non-physical. That's the only thing I think a materialist might take issue with.

 

[leibowde84]

That would still put you as 'undecided' As you agree that 'materialism' is a possibility. As you also said God (not made of physical matter) is a possibility.

So, just to be clear, you would consider a dream a "phenomenon" observed through the senses? Because, I might disagree with this.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It allows a materialist to explain the existence of beauty.

I don't see it as a problem unless it being claimed the origin of this experience is non-physical. That's the only thing I think a materialist might take issue with.

Yes that non-physical thing, which materialists incessantly complain about in regards to religion, and then turn around and posit something non-physical themselves.

It is a hopeless intellectual enterprise to begin with, trying to contort "beauty" and "water" into the same sort of stuff. There is no difference between materialism and spiritualism when you make all into one stuff. It is more correctly identified as monism, and it is then arbitrary if you interpret this one stuff as spiritual, or as material.

 

[George-ananda]

Software in a computer can create a non physical experience of reality because of the way our brain works. Yet this non-physical experience is dependent on the hardware that produces it.

The only divide is maybe the denial of the necessity of the hardware which produces this non-physical experience?

I can tell you right now that without the computer hardware there is no non-physical experience of reality possible, in computer terms.

That is a materialist viewpoint. A spiritualist viewpoint would be that consciousness/software can run on other types of hardware like soul bodies made of non-physical matter. For example many spiritualists believe that a near death experience is our software/consciousness running on our astral body hardware independent of the brain hardware.

 

[George-ananda]

So, just to be clear, you would consider a dream a "phenomenon" observed through the senses? Because, I might disagree with this.

No, I wouldn't call that the type of 'phenomena' I am talking about here. Seeing a ghost can be either a 'dream' (hallucination) or an encounter with a real entity (phenomena). A materialist believes the ghost is just physical mental events (hallucination, misperception, etc., i.e. nothing non-physical is going on). A spiritualist can believe that it may be a physical mental event or an encounter with a real entity (paranormal phenomena).

 

[Nakosis]

That is a materialist viewpoint. A spiritualist viewpoint would be that consciousness/software can run on other types of hardware like soul bodies made of non-physical matter. For example some believe that a near death experience is our software/consciousness running on our astral body hardware independent of the brain.

That's fine, 'm just not sure how best to differentiate between the non-physical astral body and the non-physical.impression/qualia experienced by the brain without everything getting confused.

The brain uses hardware to project a image for he mind to perceive. Like we understand the mechanism behind watching a movie projected on a screen but that is not what we experience.

There is no mechanism that explains the astral body unless maybe panpsychism is true. Consciousness maybe being an inherent property of energy or matter?

I'm just maybe showing how the materialist view accounts for the spiritualist view. With everything we know the view is not unreasonable. Meaning I don't think you can object or argue it is unreasonable.

 

[George-ananda]

That's fine, 'm just not sure how best to differentiate between the non-physical astral body and the non-physical.impression/qualia experienced by the brain without everything getting confused.

My opinion, as a spiritualist, is that the astral body is an entity on the astral plane of nature composed of matter higher vibratory level and outside our familiar three-dimensions.

The brain uses hardware to project a image for he mind to perceive. Like we understand the mechanism behind watching a movie projected on a screen but that is not what we experience.
There is no mechanism that explains the astral body unless maybe panpsychism is true. Consciousness maybe being an inherent property of energy or matter?

My personal belief is that Consciousness is all One. It experiences finite experience by incarnating finite vehicles physical, astral and higher.

I'm just maybe showing how the materialist view accounts for the spiritualist view. With everything we know the view is not unreasonable. Meaning I don't think you can object or argue it is unreasonable.

I am not going to argue here that it is unreasonable, but I'm going to argue it is 'materialism' in the OP question. Everything is still a product of physical matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Consciousness is the result of the activity of the brain

Simply, our thoughts?