What is the true nature of 'I' in relation to sensations and thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical assertion that 'thinking' and 'sensation-of-awareness' are fundamental to understanding existence, supporting the claim "I think, therefore I am." Participants explore the nature of 'I', questioning whether the self can be defined through sensations and thoughts or if it exists independently. The conversation delves into the distinction between internal perceptions and external realities, suggesting that awareness may not be separate from its content. There is debate over whether the self can make true judgments about its existence, with some arguing that understanding is inherently relative. Ultimately, the discourse highlights the complexity of defining the self and the relationship between perception and reality.
  • #31
Originally posted by FZ+
There are clouds and I cannot see the stars. Godel's paradox provides that even if there were no clouds, I cannot see all the stars.

The fact that one can not see all the stars are not caused by Godels paradox (this is a paradox applied to any formal system, and says that any formal system can not be both complete and consistent) but by the fact that:
- Our eyes and instruments are not sensitive enough to capture all the light emitting objects, so we only see the objects that emit enough light that can be captured on earth. Far away objects because of their distance therefore leave not enough light to be seen on earth.
- The universe has a horizon, caused by the fact that light from far away objects has not had enough time to reach us. This is a phenomena closely linked to the expansion of the universe.

There is however another nice paradox attached to this, and which shows that the night sky is in effect dark (except for the dots of light from galaxies and stars), which could not be the case if the universe was infinite in size and infinite in time, and homogenous.
We assume the universe however to be homogeneous, and all parts of the universe containing (on the large scale) the same amount of matter and light emitting matter. Space dust does not contribute to the darkness, cause that would re-emit the light.
So one of the propositions would have to be false: either the universe is finite in size, or the universe has not existed for an eternity, at least not in it's present form with light emitting matter in forms of galaxies and stars.
The nice feature of this is that initially the cause of the darkness of the night sky was assumed to be caused by the redhsift of light. Which means that in another part of the spectrum, the night sky is in fact luminant, and which has shown to be the case at around 2.7 Kelvin. The initial value was derived from theoretical calculations, and was around 3 K (this is the temperature of surrounding space, or also known as the Cosmic Background Radiation - CMBR).
Later investigations showed that this explenation was wrong, and the CMBR is now considered as the remnants of the photons in the early universe, a short time after the Big Bang, when the temperature and density sank low enough to allow photons to travel freely.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by heusdens
If conscioussness is a product of The Mind, then it is clear that The Mind itself can not be consciousness itself, cause then we could not distinguish between 'The Mind' and the product it creates: consciousness.
However, that is what you defined The Mind to be, namely consciousness. It seems now that for 'fitting your hypothese' in reality, you have shifted the definition of The Mind, so that it fits the concept of Matter, the philosophical term matter in philosophical materialism.
Matter indeed is the stuff that is developing progressively, and caused consciousness, a property not existing before in matter, and derived from primitive forms of matter through a long lasting process of evolution.

So I get from this, you have dropped your 'Mind' hypothese after all since you can not longer claim that 'The Mind' is just consciousness, and now use the term 'The Mind' to denote what is better known and undestood as Matter.



That what mankind has done, and what distinguishes mankind from the rest of the natural world, is that early man succeeded in using tools to interact with the natural world, to extend the power of man.
By using tools, mankind developed means of sustain (for instance through agriculture, manufacture) that it didn't have original. The use of tools has also lead to the development of consciousness. Our consciousness is great part derived from this long historic process of development, in which labour played a significant role.



This is quite an inaccurate description. The fact that the star light arriving at our eyes, creates an image in our eye, which is represented within the brain in some other form, does not withstand the fact that there is actual light emitted from the star that traveled the distance to Earth where our eye could capture it, and which are the cause for our sensation and awareness of the night sky and stars. Without the actual star light coming from the star, without the star itself, there would not have happened this sensation and awareness. Your 'hypothese' always manipulates our thinking, in claiming that apart from our own sensations, nothing can be assumed to be the cause for that sensations, and if it is stated, that such a proposition is pure nonsense and would lead us to adopt the doctrine of solipsism (a doctrine that claims that only our sensations and awarenesses are real, and that there is nothing outside of that), you simply compensate that by 'inventing' a 'SuperMind' that would have 'caused' our sensations. Instead of mentioning the real cause for the sensations, the actual star from which we see a tiny bit of light, which is of course a more accurate and factual description.

Unfortunately hou have only proved it can't be proved and you do it by having someone else trying to do the proveing which is the whole point. prove it is whatever you think it is.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by greg
Unfortunately hou have only proved it can't be proved and you do it by having someone else trying to do the proveing which is the whole point. prove it is whatever you think it is.

What did I proof that can't be proved?

I assume you want me to proof the premise of Materialism, which claims that the reality outside of our perceptions is material?

May I ask you what part of the concept of matter don't you understand, and what science result makes you doubt material reality?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.
 
  • #35
Heusdens makes an interesting point Lifegazer. I believe I have even suggested it before, however back then you called it the subconscious instead of The Mind.

The existence of what you call The Mind, or God, you claim is backed up because all mind-ful entities experience the same laws of physics, and are therefore somehow linked. Since you assert for some reason that all things exist within mind, you therefore assume that all things must exist within the same mind since they expereince the same reality.

I ask, if they experience the same reality, how is this reality different from a material reality?. Since you have continually refused to define exactly what The Mind is, it seems to me that it can only be a set of rules everything follows, a reality. Calling reality a mind doesn't change what it is, it's just a new definition for mind.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by CJames
I ask, if they experience the same reality, how is this reality different from a material reality?.
It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.
Since you have continually refused to define exactly what The Mind is
The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..
 
  • #37
Originally posted by FZ+
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.

Materialism is the only workable hypothese. It is implicitly assumed by all living organisms. Only in the human mind we can raise the issue as such. What has come out of it, is not a disproof of materialism as such, but has lead to a deeper understanding of the material world. We have a far better understanding of nature and how nature works as any other living organism. Yet, we ourselves are part of nature.

Everybody in real life develops his/her view on the world based on the 'assumption' that what one perceives is reflecting something outside of our perceptions and mind. We happen to be aware of the fact that our senses can deceive us, and that the way we perceive of things, is not the exact reality. The development of science has lead to an increase in our understanding of reality. We have more then what is called "naive realism" (what we perceive is true) and developed a view of reality which is based on science.

The doctrine of Idealism, which in first instance claims there is no objective material reality, and in later instance claims that the objective truth is some unknowable deity, is a claim which has no basis on our scientific understanding of the world. Our understanding of the world, by our accumulated knowledge of science which, although it is immense, is not and can never be complete, just focuses on the part of our missing knowledge. Our understanding of scientific practice and use of scientific methods to investigate reality - as mankind has been practicing the last couple of hundred years - however, never indicated the need for assuming the existence of a Deity. This at least indicates that profound doubt about the material reality, is rather unprofound and baseless.

The "proof" of materialism would contradict materialism as such, cause materialism is in no way like idealism, that puts forward to the doctrine of having knowledge of "absolutes". The "Absolute Idea" in form of God or anything like that, is rejected by materialism. A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by CJames
Calling reality a mind doesn't change what it is, it's just a new definition for mind.

I think you turned things upside down there, and meant to say: "it's just a new definition for reality".
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Lifegazer
It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.

Oh, realy? It goed beyond science...

The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"...

In my mind this just indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps it is you yourself, which is "dreaming his/her life" and doesn't see the reality of it.

You happen to have a total and basic misrepresentation of material reality as we know it. The fact is not, that such a reality doesn't exist, the fact is just that you yourself are unaware of it, and happen to have no real knowledge about it.

It's a funny and childish thing to claim on such ignorance that anything you do not know about, is not really existing. Isn't it?

The truth is really this. To see reality as it is, is not very popular, and 'human minds' have developed through the centuries various ways of escaping the reality. One of the scenario's to 'escape' reality is through religion, and others include drugs and the belief in 'spiritual' things and like.

Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person. However, there is no escape to reality, trying to escape reality is rather futile. We happen to be part of it, and have to deal with it, wether we want it or not. And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality, and try to improof that. Reality is not unknowable, and we have developed good ways of dealing with reality.

The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..

Then the issue is really simple. 'The Mind' is then the collective mind of all human beings. Nothing more and nothing less. And as such I can agree that such a thing can be called to have existence.

But it does not have the other properties you portrayed (being "all powerfull, omnipotence and omnipresent" etc.). Neither it solves your issue of matter, cause the "collective mind of all human beings" can not be held responsible for the "creation" of the material world.
Before there were human beings, there was a world, but no "collective human mind".
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by heusdens
A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.
Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.
 
  • #41
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.
3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.

The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality. However, no one would say it is proven, would it?
 
  • #42
Originally posted by heusdens
Oh, realy? It goed beyond science...
Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?
The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"...
A meaningful dream. A purposeful dream.
Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person.
I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?
Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.
And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality
You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by FZ+
3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.
I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.
The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality.
They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?
However, no one would say it is proven, would it?
Exactly.
 
  • #44
I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.
Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.

They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?
I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic. Remember, you reason, physical laws and consciousness are illusions created by the Santa Clauses... Did I just hear jingle bells?
 
  • #45
Originally posted by FZ+
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.

My objective is not to 'proof' materialism. I never claimed I did or could proof it. The formal system of reasoning which materialism in fact is, is based on assumptions that are believed to be without any doubt. But the formal system itself is unable to provide a proof for that. This is of course the case for all formal systems, materialism not excluded.

The question is just: can there be serious doubt about the premise of materialism. And if so, what premise can it be replaced with.
The only alternative we have come up with so far is in the form of objective idealism. The formal system in the form of the 'Mind hypothese' of LG, is such an attack and replacement of materialism.

The 'mind hypothese' has rejected the premise of materialism (claiming there is in first instance no material reality) and has replaced this with the premise that all of reality and existence is in the mind, and there is nothing outside it, what is represented in the mind, that reflects some objective material reality.

It is argued and proved however that such an hypothese is not holdable, and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism. This is corrected in later instance by claiming that the source of our awareness is 'created' by 'The Mind' (which is just another name for God).

So the real position which we have to choose between is either accept science based on the premises of materialism, or accept the existence of a Deity.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.

If you'll excuse me, but materialism is not just a scientific theory, but materialism is a philosophical point of view. Any science ("real" science and not pseudo science) is based on the assumptions of materialism. Without the point of view of materialism, there would not be any science.

Regarding theories of the 'origin of the perceived universe'. Cosmology is just the field in which such theories are lively developed, and quite recently, cosmology is "married" to physics, cause in order to explain the very large (the observable universe) we need to be able to understand the very small (quantum mechanics, gravity, etc).

I think all would agree that cosmology does not deal with the philosophical viewpoint that a Deity created the Big Bang, but instead seeks to explain the material causes for this event.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by FZ+
Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.
I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.
But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.
I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic.
Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.
Don't presume that religion = God. If you do, then there is never a hope of a meaningful rational-discussion about such matters.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?

Wrong. Science does not and can not claim that 'God' does not exist, since there is no workable hypothese of 'God' that is meaningfull in scientific terms. Science can not deal with the concept of a Deity, and scientists keeps a healthy distance from such debates.


I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?

I could not be a judge upon that, can I?

If we take for instance Hegel, who was a great philosopher, and marxists philosophy owns a great deal on Hegel, esp. the dialectics part he developed, I would not in any way claim that philosophers that base their thinking upon 'objective realism' didn't contribute to philosophy as such.


Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.

You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.

What improvement is your philosophy? What is the need within the scientific understanding of the world for the re-invention of a Deity?

What part of reality is not dealt with in science that calls for the need of a hypothese based on 'objective idealism'?
 
  • #49
Originally posted by heusdens
and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism.
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.
 
  • #50
I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.
You must be joking! I discussed it, but you ignored my reply. Your disproof was utterly incorrect, and can be easily disproved by evidence showing that what you think of as logically necessary did not in fact occur.

But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.
In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.

Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.
Oh I am sorry. The Santa Clauses ignore logic. Happy now?
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.

I have explained to the readers on this forum that Idealism can be split in two main forms: objective idealism and subjetive idealism.

The later, subjective idealism, indeed leads to nothing else but solipsism. Objective idealism as such does not, but this goes on the cost of having to invent a "Deity" of some sorts.

But both directions in Idealism have a common viewpoint. They refuse to accept that there is an objective material reality, outside of our senses and perceptions and thoughts.

Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive. Instead of adopting the idea that the source for our sensations, when observing a chair for instance, must be based on the reality of that chair as something that does not exist within our mind, but outside of it, and cause our sensations of that chair, as materialists claims, idealism deals with this as follows:
In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive.

From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?

In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.

How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?
 
  • #53
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?

I think that can be said, indeed.


How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?

That is of course also an assumption. What I call brown maybe the colour another person has in mind which he/she percerieves as yellow.

We have however the fact that the way our brains work, from their genetic origin, are more or less equal to everyone. So we don't expect that our mental perceptions of colours would be in any way different.

The question is intriguing though, as how we can be certain that "my yellow" equals "your yellow". We can only know from outside, by using a standard calibrated source for the perception, that our perceptions are alike. What is reflected inside, should cause the same sensation as both the input and equipment are equal. We should not expect differently in any way.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Originally posted by FZ+
In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.

But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by heusdens
But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.
prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist
 
  • #56
Originally posted by greg
prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist

Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Originally posted by heusdens
Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD
 
  • #58
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.

This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand.
You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]
 
  • #59
Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...


I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.
greg says: God is everything even you. the self in you is the self in all. all you think is the material universe is just a very small part of God

You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]
 
  • #60
Originally posted by greg
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD

I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
 

Similar threads

How does the body know what to sense?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
EMF (Electromagnetic Field) & EHS (Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity)
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
306
What is the most basic form of information?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
I What is the true nature of worlds in the Many-Worlds Interpretation?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Does energy currency make sense?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
320
G.H. Hardy's Views on Mathematician vs Physicist Objectivity
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Phase Contrast Telescope - Part II
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Physical state to subjective Qualia and evolution - why?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Kant, Geometry, and Physical Theory
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K