Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[sayak83]

Well, you are right, with the exception that he did not explain lighnings. He did.

So, how is Braman falsifiable?

Ciao

- viole

i edited my response. See above.
Explanation needs a how as well. The Thor theory does not tell what lightning is and how he makes it or why it burns people etc.

 

[viole]

i edited my response. See above.
Explanation needs a how as well. The Thor theory does not tell what lightning is and how he makes it or why it burns people etc.

That does not entail falsifiability.

How can you falsify a prediction? Do you have a date in mind when Braman will provide that?

If not, I also predict that we will find all answers. And they will not involve any Braman.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

That does not entail falsifiability.

How can you falsify a prediction? Do you have a date in mind when Braman will provide that?

Ciao

- ciole

you said Thor provides an explanation. I said it did not and explained the reason.
Brahman is not a God and it does not talk to people.
If it is found that consciousness is really an on-off thing that only exists in humans and a few other animals and nowhere else, then major aspects of the Upanisadic theory will be falsified.

 

[viole]

you said Thor provides an explanation. I said it did not and explained it.

Brahman is not a God and it does not talk to people.
If it is found that consciousness is really an on-off thing that only exists in humans and a few other animals and nowhere else, then major aspects of the Upanisadic theory will be falsified.

Yet, you accused Thor of being unfalsifiable, while providing no viable falsifiable criterium for Braman. So your critique of materialim is just a list of question begging arguments, I am afraid.

And even if true that consciousness exists only in humans...how does that invalidate orthodox materialism or make a case for Braman, or any other metaphysical entity?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Yet, you accused Thor of being infalsifiable, while providing no viable falsifiable criterium for Braman. So uour critique of materialim is just a list of question begging arguments, I am afraid.

And even if true that consciousness exists only in humans...how does that invalidate orthodox materialism or make a case for Braman, or any other metaphysical entity?

Ciao

- viole

If consciousness only exists in humans then Upanisdic theory of Brahman will be falsified. Brahman-theory predicts that consciousness (though graded) is present not uniquely in humans but in many complex wholes (animals, plants, even complex networks like eco-systems to some degree). If a fully worked out theory of consciousness finds that this is not the case, Upanisadic theory is falsified. I am confused, why is this not an example of a viable criteria of falsification?

 

[ratiocinator]

If one is able to develop a fully worked out explanation for :-
1) How matter-energy-forces-space-time are integrated with each other
2) How and why they interact with mathematical regularity in accordance to the laws of physics
3) How does logical/mathematical/informational domains interact with physical domains
4) How and why the physical domain is so arranged that emergence of complex wholes become possible
5) How knowledge and consciousness is explained and how they interact with (1)-(4)

In terms of a single integrated well-validated theory, then nothing else needs to be explained. If, suppose, this theory posits an ur-entity like Brahman with certain features that explains and predicts the features above with precision, then, the justification for believing its existence is the success it has in explaining and predicting all these features of the world, which currently nothing can. Then saying, by this entity and not something else, is because, it and only it has shown itself able to provide these explanations and predictions and nothing else has.

The problem being that you don't actually have anything remotely like that.

 

[sayak83]

The problem being that you don't actually have anything remotely like that.

No. Then I would get a Nobel Prize. I am proposing an avenue of inquiry that, to my mind, has promise to get us there. Like any hypothesis, one does not require to believe in it, just pursue it and see if it leads to something promising or to a dead end.

 

[viole]

If consciousness only exists in humans then Upanisdic theory of Brahman will be falsified. Brahman-theory predicts that consciousness (though graded) is present not uniquely in humans but in many complex wholes (animals, plants, even complex networks like eco-systems to some degree). If a fully worked out theory of consciousness finds that this is not the case, Upanisadic theory is falsified. I am confused, why is this not an example of a viable criteria of falsification?

Because: how do we know that the lettuce on my hamburger was conscious to start with?

And, apart from falsifiability, how would a thinking lettuce disprove classical materialism?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Because: how do we know that the lettuce on my hamburger was conscious to start with?

Ciao

- viole

That is what the science of AI, neiroscience etc are trying to develop, is it not? What makes X conscious as opposed to Y?

 

[Koldo]

No it is not.

It certainly appears to be.
It is along the lines of: I don't know why 'X' is the case, therefore 'God'.

 

[sayak83]

It certainly appears to be.
It is along the lines of: I don't know why 'X' is the case, therefore 'God'.

No it is not.
What God?

 

[viole]

That is what the science of AI, neiroscience etc are trying to develop, is it not? What makes X conscious as opposed to Y?

Yes, and?

Suppose I tell you that the invisible blue fairy theory makes exactly the same predictions that your theory of Braman does.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Yes, and?

Suppose I tell you that the invisible blue fairy makes exactly the same predictions that your theory of Braman does.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

Is the theory of the invisible fairy well worked out? The Brahman theory is. That's the difference between a lazy theory (blue fairy) and a good theory (string theory). Both strings and fairies are invisible, the difference is how well worked out string-theory is as compared to fairy-theory. Brahman is more like string-theory than fairy-theory.

Let us look at an analogy. The atomic Epicurean (or Vaisesika) theory of how matter interacts was a well-worked out good theory about invisible entities (atoms). It was wrong in many details, but since it was a good theory and on the right track, later scientists (Dalton etc.) could build upon it layer by layer to develop the modern theories of matter. I am proposing nothing more than using the Brahman theory and build upon it in the same vein to go for the next level of unification.

 

[Koldo]

No it is not.
What God?

You are missing the point with this question.
The main characteristic of the 'God of the gaps' reasoning is that you attribute the cause/responsibility of any given state of affairs to a god without showing that this actually happens to be the case or that there are, at the very least, some really compelling reasons, besides your own personal preference, to conclude this happens to be the case.

All that your OP shows is personal preference.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Having read this entire thread, I maintain that this is a dressed up argument from ignorance..Now with pseudoscience!

 

[viole]

Is the theory of the invisible fairy well worked out? The Brahman theory is. That's the difference between a lazy theory (blue fairy) and a good theory (string theory). Both strings and fairies are invisible, the difference is how well worked out string-theory is as compared to fairy-theory. Brahman is more like string-theory than fairy-theory.

Lol. I can work out a blue fairy theory anytime. And I challenge you to find any arguments that do not defeat Braman, too. All I have to do is to postulate that the same predictions of Braman are also predicted by the invisible blue fairy. The difference is that Braman is not a conscious being, while the blue fairy is. And that she instantiates consciousness by simply flying around living beings and invisbly smiling at them.

It is very easy to make up pieces of puzzle that fill any hole. That is what religious people do all the time.

So, you are left to explain the difference between Braman and any other filling hole that I might make up. As you guys made up Braman.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Lol. I can work out a blue fairy theory anytime. And I challenge you to find any arguments that do not defeat Braman, too. All I have to do is to postulate that the same predictions of Braman are also predicted by the invisible blue fairy. The difference is that Braman is not a conscious being, while the blue fairy is.

It is very easy to make up pieces of puzzle that fill any hole. That is what religious people do all the time.

So, you are left to explain the difference between Braman and any other filling hole that I might make up. As you guys made up Braman.

Ciao

- ciole

You should try and come up with a well-worked out blue fairy theory then and not make idle claims. You will not be able to, because we know that "blue-ness" and "having wings sprouting from the back" cannot be made a part of any explanatory schema of consciousness. They will remain idle free standing properties that will be shaved off by Occam's razor, at which point the blue-fairy theory will neither be blue nor a fairy.

Let us look at an analogy. The atomic Epicurean (or Vaisesika) theory of how matter interacts was a well-worked out good theory about invisible entities (atoms). It was wrong in many details, but since it was a good theory and on the right track, later scientists (Dalton etc.) could build upon it layer by layer to develop the modern theories of matter. I am proposing nothing more than using the Brahman theory and build upon it in the same vein to go for the next level of unification.

 

[sayak83]

You are missing the point with this question.
The main characteristic of the 'God of the gaps' reasoning is that you attribute the cause/responsibility of any given state of affairs to a god without showing that this actually happens to be the case or that there are, at the very least, some really compelling reasons, besides your own personal preference, to conclude this happens to be the case.

All that your OP shows is personal preference.

Brahman is not a God. Its properties are specific and tractable and the theory makes falsifiable predictions (see a few posts above).

 

[sayak83]

Having read this entire thread, I maintain that this is a dressed up argument from ignorance..Now with pseudoscience!

And you have no rational reason for saying so.

 

[viole]

You should try and come up with a well-worked out blue fairy theory then and not make idle claims.

Let us look at an analogy. The atomic Epicurean (or Vaisesika) theory of how matter interacts was a well-worked out good theory about invisible entities (atoms). It was wrong in many details, but since it was a good theory and on the right track, later scientists (Dalton etc.) could build upon it layer by layer to develop the modern theories of matter. I am proposing nothing more than using the Brahman theory and build upon it in the same vein to go for the next level of unification.

I am not making idle claims.

I told you: the invisible blue fairy is responsible for the consciousness of everything that is conscious. She achieves that by flying around creatures, including lettuce, and smiling at them.

So, the day we find lettuce being conscious, we will have some confidence that the blue fairy exists. And that she flew around that lettuce smiling at it.

Actually, we can make a perfect prediction. Since she flies and smiles all the time, i predict that everything is conscious.

What more explanatory power do you need?

Ciao

- viole