Western Materialism

[F1fan]

I guess they are as convinced of the truth of their position as you are of yours.

We aren't talking about Coke versis pepsi, we are talking about their claims that are inconsistent with facts. They still haven't explained where consciousness is "transmitted" from if brains pick it up like radiosets.

We're imagining a scenario: lights in the sky. We can also imagine which facts would help us decide if it was little green men or something more mundane.

Then imaging facts will justify any judgment. If you imagine UFO facts then you will conclude it is a UFO. It can be Kingons if you imagine they exist. This is why reasoning only follows the actual facts, not assumptions. And with insufficient evidence we make judgments that are the most likely, and least elaborate.

For example, were there military manoeuvres, or a meteor shower, a local traffic helicopter in the sky at that time.? Etc. You see what I mean?

What you are doing is pondering the likely possibilities. All those things will have different bits of evidence.

When I was a kid my buddies and me were outside one fall night, no moon, no clouds. We heard a hum and looked up and saw a big cigar shaped mass. All we could see was that is blocked out the stars, no details of the UFO. After about 10 minutes of freaking out that we were seeing a UFO they turned on the GOODYEAR sign. We'd never seen a blimp. So our imaginations followed fear and made a conclusion based on what we were reading about UFO's.

My point is that those claiming minds and consciousness are external to the brain is because they happen to be theists who have an vested interest in their God being relevant somehow, and God being the consciousness we experience is one way for them to be correct in their beliefs since they lack evidence otherwise. The hostility against materiam, physicalism, and science in general is all driven from the minds of believers who fnd their beliefs don't have the evidence that rational minds require.

Maybe. Can you think of evidence we could find, in principle, that would help decide?

I don't know your beliefs, but do you have beliefs that you are trying to find evidence for and being frustrated? Rational minds suspend belief and look for where the evidence leads, and then believes that conclusion.

I think a lot of atheists and people heavily interested in science overlook just how significant the gap is in our understanding of consciousness.

The gap is a gap. It's like there being no final explanation of how gravity works. The consciousness issue affects our egos more directly than gravity so there will be those who have beliefs about it related to their religion. My ongoing criticism about Western religions is that people are taught to accept a framework without evidence and reason, and this justifies a bad habit that can sabotage making decisions about other things.

It is special from a scientific perspective because it is the only example of a subjective phenomenon and nothing in the sciences (yet) suggests that there should be subjective phenomena associated with matter. Once we have a better scientific grip on it we should have a different perspective but for now it is unique.

I'm sure it is common among the animals - I suspect that ants and bees and maybe even simpler creatures have experiences. Who knows, maybe even plants.

My point is that being humble isn't a bad virtue for we "superior" beings.

Can you cite a scientific finding that contradicts the position, though?

We make basic observations that suggest their claims are untrue. And don't forget, they make claims, they have to show evidence THEY are correct. What evidence is there that brains are receivers that pick up consciousness? Nothing they have shown us, so why accept their claims at all?

 

[Yerda]

Well I'm not sure, but I tend to think that if conciousness is transmitted such that could transfer past life memories for example then it would mean that conciousness is kind of like the cloud where memories are stored.

I could be wrong but I don't think anybody is saying that.

For me, the best way to proceed is to acknowledge that the most parsimonious explanation is that brain activity is the source and memories are stored in the brain. If we propose that the brain is somehow picking up subjective experiences we need to assume that there is a separate source of experiences.

The only point I wanted to make is that the claim the brain isn't the source of our experiences is actually quite tricky to argue against. There isn't an obvious way of ruling it out as far as I can see. Maybe others have a better grasp of the situation.

It could be that brain memory is redundant, but one wonders why this redundancy evolved if there was no selection pressure in favour of it (which I wouldn't expect there to be if we could rely on transmitted memory for survival).

I'm personally open minded to the existence of concious spirits, I'm just not convinced that there is clear evidence of their existence for what its worth.

I suppose it wouldn't be redundant if the particular pattern of neural activation was required to "access" the experiential content. I mean if I have a memory of a blue care whizzing down the street it could still be encoded by the brain even if it isn't itself the source of the contents. I don't know, I'm confusing myself with this now.

Cheers for the response though.

 

[F1fan]

Legs did not develope to "cause" mobility. They developed because mobility was already an idea and a possibility awaiting fulfillment.

Really? So there was fish that had mobility in water that wanted to get on land and move? Was it fish (or is it God?) that had the idea to evolve fish to move on land? Are you suggesting there was a plan ahead of time before things evolved? Don't be vague, spell it out for us.

Had mobility not already been metaphysically extant, the physical legs would never have occurred.

So before any organism moved where did the idea come from? Or was it not an idea yet (let's note where was the primordial mind that held these ideas?)

Same is true of life, and of cognition. These were possibilities awaiting fulfillment from the moment the physical universe began.

Only possible in hindsight. I think it's more accurate to say that everything that has evolved has been consistent with the laws of physics and matter, including consciousness. It's also possible that every humans will be born with a type of fatal cancer that ends life by 30, so just enough time to get pregnant and give birth before death. But humans won't live onger than 30. It's possible, right?

They were written itnto it's 'blueprint'. Physicality simply gives physical substance to the plan.

Who was the author, as you imply here? And why does that blueprint include cancers? Can you admit it is a flawed blueprint?

 

[Yerda]

We aren't talking about Coke versis pepsi, we are talking about their claims that are inconsistent with facts. They still haven't explained where consciousness is "transmitted" from if brains pick it up like radiosets.

Then imaging facts will justify any judgment. If you imagine UFO facts then you will conclude it is a UFO. It can be Kingons if you imagine they exist. This is why reasoning only follows the actual facts, not assumptions. And with insufficient evidence we make judgments that are the most likely, and least elaborate.

What you are doing is pondering the likely possibilities. All those things will have different bits of evidence.

When I was a kid my buddies and me were outside one fall night, no moon, no clouds. We heard a hum and looked up and saw a big cigar shaped mass. All we could see was that is blocked out the stars, no details of the UFO. After about 10 minutes of freaking out that we were seeing a UFO they turned on the GOODYEAR sign. We'd never seen a blimp. So our imaginations followed fear and made a conclusion based on what we were reading about UFO's.

My point is that those claiming minds and consciousness are external to the brain is because they happen to be theists who have an vested interest in their God being relevant somehow, and God being the consciousness we experience is one way for them to be correct in their beliefs since they lack evidence otherwise. The hostility against materiam, physicalism, and science in general is all driven from the minds of believers who fnd their beliefs don't have the evidence that rational minds require.

I don't know your beliefs, but do you have beliefs that you are trying to find evidence for and being frustrated? Rational minds suspend belief and look for where the evidence leads, and then believes that conclusion.

The gap is a gap. It's like there being no final explanation of how gravity works. The consciousness issue affects our egos more directly than gravity so there will be those who have beliefs about it related to their religion. My ongoing criticism about Western religions is that people are taught to accept a framework without evidence and reason, and this justifies a bad habit that can sabotage making decisions about other things.

My point is that being humble isn't a bad virtue for we "superior" beings.

We make basic observations that suggest their claims are untrue. And don't forget, they make claims, they have to show evidence THEY are correct. What evidence is there that brains are receivers that pick up consciousness? Nothing they have shown us, so why accept their claims at all?

I feel like you're missing my point and I don't know if it's because I'm not being clear, or because you prefer to miss it.

I understand the motivations, it just doesn't bother me. You don't have to accept an idea to look at it. And this one, while I think it is fanciful and motivated by something other than a desire to seek the truth in this case, is still kinda interesting.

Anyway, have a good one, fella.

 

[F1fan]

I feel like you're missing my point and I don't know if it's because I'm not being clear, or because you prefer to miss it.

I understand the motivations, it just doesn't bother me. You don't have to accept an idea to look at it. And this one, while I think it is fanciful and motivated by something other than a desire to seek the truth in this case, is still kinda interesting.

Anyway, have a good one, fella.

This is debate where ideas are proposed for their truthfulness. If ideas are not consistent with evidence and reason it attracts criticism.

 

[Yerda]

This is debate where ideas are proposed for their truthfulness. If ideas are not consistent with evidence and reason it attracts criticism.

Can you point out the inconsistency with the evidence?

 

[F1fan]

Can you point out the inconsistency with the evidence?

That has been explained by the critial thinkers in their responses. There have been many anti-materialist claims, and the rebuttals are quite obvious.

 

[PureX]

That would be what we often refer to as the "laws of physics", then, I suppose, or more generally the principles of order in the universe that we categorise in terms of "laws". Spinoza and Einstein's God, basically.

What we call "the laws of physics" are some of the OBSERVED RESULTS of what is possible and what is not. But we still have no idea at all why we observe these particular results, as opposed to any others. Existence is an event taking place according to a specific set of possibilities and restrictions. How? Why? We can identify some of the machinations resulting from these possibilities and restrictions, but so far they tell us nothing at all about the possibilities and restrictions, themselves. And if we try to claim that these possibilities and restrictions occurred spontaneously and randomly, or that they simply 'always were', we are proposing something that has absolutely no known precedent whatever.

That would even be less likely than claiming that a God did it.

 

[PureX]

Really? So there was fish that had mobility in water that wanted to get on land and move? Was it fish (or is it God?) that had the idea to evolve fish to move on land? Are you suggesting there was a plan ahead of time before things evolved? Don't be vague, spell it out for us.

So before any organism moved where did the idea come from? Or was it not an idea yet (let's note where was the primordial mind that held these ideas?)

Only possible in hindsight. I think it's more accurate to say that everything that has evolved has been consistent with the laws of physics and matter, including consciousness. It's also possible that every humans will be born with a type of fatal cancer that ends life by 30, so just enough time to get pregnant and give birth before death. But humans won't live onger than 30. It's possible, right?

Who was the author, as you imply here? And why does that blueprint include cancers? Can you admit it is a flawed blueprint?

Matter exists because it was possible for it to exist. It exists as it does because that's how it was possible for it to exist. So when matter takes on a particular form and fulfills a particular function, it is doing so because that's what was possible for it to do. And because it could not do otherwise: what was not possible for it to do.

These possibilities and limitations existed before the matter did, and before the matter fulfilled the possibilities that followed from it. Existence is forst and foremost a set of possibilities and limitations. Everything that exists follows from those.

 

[exchemist]

What we call "the laws of physics" are some of the OBSERVED RESULTS of what is possible and what is not. But we still have no idea at all why we observe these particular results, as opposed to any others. Existence is an event taking place according to a specific set of possibilities and restrictions. How? Why? We can identify some of the machinations resulting from these possibilities and restrictions, but so far they tell us nothing at all about the possibilities and restrictions, themselves. And if we try to claim that these possibilities and restrictions occurred spontaneously and randomly, or that they simply 'always were', we are proposing something that has absolutely no known precedent whatever.

That would even be less likely than claiming that a God did it.

This seems to be a long way of saying that we do not know why the fundamental order we observe is present. I agree.

Science starts from categorising and describing that order (those aspects of it we have come across to date), but can't go behind it to tell why it should be there or why it takes the form it does.

 

[PureX]

This seems to be a long way of saying that we do not know why the fundamental order we observe is present. I agree.

Science starts from categorising and describing that order (those aspects of it we have come across to date), but can't go behind it to tell why it should be there or why it takes the form it does.

Regarding the fundamental questions of existence, science can't tell us much of anything. All it can do is investigate relationships happening within and among the results of that "possible/ not possible" existential blueprint.

 

[exchemist]

Regarding the fundamental questions of existence, science can't tell us much of anything. All it can do is investigate relationships happening within and among the results of that "possible/ not possible" existential blueprint.

Nor can Archaeology, Spanish or Economics. My toothbrush is not much use as a can opener. What's your point?

 

[F1fan]

Matter exists because it was possible for it to exist.

It does exist, to say it was a possibility is meaningless.

It exists as it does because that's how it was possible for it to exist.

Odd language. That you keep mention that matter was possible suggests that you are implying there was a time when it didn't exist. Based on what?

So when matter takes on a particular form and fulfills a particular function, it is doing so because that's what was possible for it to do. And because it could not do otherwise: what was not possible for it to do.

No, matter is just behaving according to the laws of physics. These laws are inherent to matter.

These possibilities and limitations existed before the matter did, and before the matter fulfilled the possibilities that followed from it. Existence is forst and foremost a set of possibilities and limitations. Everything that exists follows from those.

And there you go, assuming matter was caused or came into being somehow (where have we heard that before???). Based on what? We know energy can't be created or destroyed, so why are you making an assumption there were "possibilities and limitations" existed before matter? If matter didn't exist what did exist to form these possibilities?

 

[RestlessSoul]

It does exist, to say it was a possibility is meaningless.

Odd language. That you keep mention that matter was possible suggests that you are implying there was a time when it didn't exist. Based on what?

No, matter is just behaving according to the laws of physics. These laws are inherent to matter.

And there you go, assuming matter was caused or came into being somehow (where have we heard that before???). Based on what? We know energy can't be created or destroyed, so why are you making an assumption there were "possibilities and limitations" existed before matter? If matter didn't exist what did exist to form these possibilities?

Careful - he’s trying to trick you into believing, if only for a moment, that the universe and our existence in it is marvellous, mysterious, even perhaps miraculous. And we can’t allow that, can we? Be on your guard, at all times.

 

[PureX]

Nor can Archaeology, Spanish or Economics. My toothbrush is not much use as a can opener. What's your point?

Then why all the science worship these days?

I have nothing against science. It's a useful method of increasing our understanding of physical functionality. But philosophy is also a useful method for discovering and vetting theories regarding the meaning and purpose of our own existence. And art is a very useful method of sharing our unique experience of being who we are, with others. And religion is a very useful method of exploring and living according to whatever theological position we hope to turn out to be the truth about the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

So who are there so many among us that think science is the only "real" method of understanding reality or of determining the truth of things? Why all the "scientism"?

 

[F1fan]

Careful - he’s trying to trick you into believing,

That's all believers have, language tricks and deception since they lack evidence and reasoning for their beliefs.

if only for a moment, that the universe and our existence in it is marvellous, mysterious, even perhaps miraculous. And we can’t allow that, can we? Be on your guard, at all times.

You seem to acknowledge that awe and emotions is at the core of religious infatuation. If you ask atheists they also feel awe, they just don't allow awe to move them towards the irrational conclusions that religions promote. That is mental discipline.

 

[F1fan]

Then why all the science worship these days?

Your contempt for science interprets the appreciation for science as worship. And remember, you are a theist and if worship is such a bad thing why is your tribe so committed to it?

I have nothing against science.

Your posts suggest you do.

It's a useful method of increasing our understanding of physical functionality. But philosophy is also a useful method for discovering and vetting theories regarding the meaning and purpose of our own existence. And art is a very useful method of sharing our unique experience of being who we are, with others. And religion is a very useful method of exploring and living according to whatever theological position we hope to turn out to be the truth about the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

So who are there so many among us that think science is the only "real" method of understanding reality or of determining the truth of things? Why all the "scientism"?

No one is exagerating the reliability of science. You have some prejudice against science for some reason. I susvect it's because it can't help validate your religious beliefs, and you hold a grudge. And'or you are envious of how science actually can show how it's true, unlike religions.

 

[PureX]

It does exist, to say it was a possibility is meaningless.

To say it was possible is self-evident. It's only meaningless to you, because saying it supports a view contrary to your materialist view of existence.

Odd language. That you keep mention that matter was possible suggests that you are implying there was a time when it didn't exist. Based on what?

Prior to the Bing Bang, matter didn't exist. In fact, even in the very earliest moments after the Big Bang began it didn't yet exist. But the possibility for it to exist was written into the nature of the event, from even before it took place, and so matter came to exist. And it came to exist in very specific ways.

No, matter is just behaving according to the laws of physics. These laws are inherent to matter.

Why? Why THOSE laws and no others? Again, the answer is self-evident. Because those laws are the expression of what was/is possible and what is not. But what is creating/determining these possibilities and limitations? Yes, we "see" the laws. We see the physical machinations expressing what is possible and what is not. But we know nothing at all of why or how they are happening. Just pointing at them and calling them "laws" doesn't explain anything.

And there you go, assuming matter was caused or came into being somehow (where have we heard that before???). Based on what?

Based on the self-evident fact that it now exists. And on the fact that is far as we can tell, it came into existence with the Big Bang.

We know energy can't be created or destroyed, so why are you making an assumption there were "possibilities and limitations" existed before matter?

Except that no energy was being expressed prior to the Big Bang, and from then on, it has been expressed as the universe we exist within. So apparently, this "rule" only applies to the expressed energy of the Big Bang, and within the universe that we exist within. The origin of all that energy is still a mystery to us, but it appears that it was not always thus extant. So this rule is not the absolute rule that you are trying to portray it as being.

If matter didn't exist what did exist to form these possibilities?

That is the million-dollar question. How do we even comprehend "existence" prior to the existence of all that we know to exist? This is a mystery that is simply beyond our cognitive reach. And yet the mystery remains. And it remains fundamental to understanding what existence is.

 

[danieldemol]

I could be wrong but I don't think anybody is saying that.

It appears to be the idea of @1137 , see this post here;

The faith that the brain is the source of mind doesn't hold up

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain. I put mind in the same category as seeing is to the eye, as mind is to the brain.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Kathryn]

It confuses the mess out of me that so many folks feel that God and Science are incompatible.

Yes, me too. Maybe they don't understand either one at all.