Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

LOL. Because 2 proclaimed materialists claim it is so when it is in their interest to do so, is not convincing to me. Nor should it be if I'm going to honestly attempt to find truth.

I am pretty sure I am not wrong on this. You say "we materialists stand against those ideas". And the ideas that you're referring to are "some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'".

But these statements have nothing to do with materialism. This is my point. You mentioned 'love' earlier. You obviously think that it exists because you said it shows how complex the brain is. Do you consider it material? I am not trying to say that this proves ghost, or santa claus(or any other childish insulting label you can think of) exists. All I'm trying to show you is that 'material'cannot be the same as 'existence'. Science could not show that a quark existed at one time in it's history. Does that mean that quarks weren't material then? Hopefully you can see the problem with making material synonmous with "known to exist".

In order for people to have philosophical debates, they must agree on the definitions of the concepts about which they disagree. The whole philosphical debate around materialism has been going on for years. What I am certain about is that no one in their right mind would
disagree with materialism if your definition is correct. You have conveniently defined it so that it cannot be wrong. No philosopher would ever accept the definition that material things are the things that exists and then turn around and say that non-material things DO exists. They cannot exists by definition! That's
just nuts! So what's all the debate about? Well, they probably have a better definition.

If the non-materialist people that post in this forum were to use this definition they would still claim that god exists. They would simply claim that he is material. The debate would then just shift from materialism versus non-materialism to god
vs no-god. This definition of material solves nothing. It is meaningless.

 

[Zero]

Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

You understand it well but you want someone else to explain it to me?
Ok, that makes sense . You cannot say that you have tried to explain it to me either and are now giving up because it is hopeless. I have paved the way for you to provide me understanding by asking very specific questions. This is typically the way a meaningful discussion is held. But these questions have not been responded to.

I hardly think I am stuck with this. I am confident there are some materialists who can ratiional defend their view.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

No, but when I get one I will be sure to start a thread asking why everyone is biased against it.

I didn't start this thread so I see no reason why I need to leave this topic so that we can then pick apart my views. But I can assure you that if I get a view, I will be able defend to. You won't be "stuck" with me just telling you it is so.

 

[Another God]

Honestly, I think I am a materialist simply because when I present my views, people call me a materialist. My views are those that have been described by Zero though.

How about this angle on it? I believe in an entirely objective universe, which is fundamental to everything, include our subjectivity. If the objective universe can be called material, then I am a materialist (but Objectivist would be a more accurate description).

Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Another God
Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.


I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.


I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.

That's good Heusdens. I have a question for you. I am assuming that when we say "materialism" we are talking about a view based on the philosophical definition you have provided. If I got that right, then how do you reconcile the statement that science is based on materialism when the physical definition (that I presume science would be using)of matter is different from the definition in the philosophical view of materialism?

Also, your philosphical definition above is much better than the ones that have been presented so far. But another question is this... Does a materialist believe that matter DOES exists? Or do they believe that ONLY matter exists? I assume Zero and AG consider themselves the 2nd one. But then according to your definition, they do not believe that conscious creations(emotions, thoughts) exists. This sounds strange.

Thanks for any answers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

After reading all the posts in this thread, I can tell you a few reasons why I get irritated with SOME materialists (by the way, you don't honestly think that at a physics forum materialists can be biased against do you?).

1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off.

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.

That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief.

3. Half-assed education.

Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity!

 

[Another God]

I love it when a thread appears to progress in understanding on all sides. Thanks for the great post Heusdens, I had all that somewhere inside my head, I just failed to put it all together when I needed it.

Fliption: Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which is based on the Materialistic philosophy. Just because we have another meaning of the word material doesn't mean that Science can't also be philosophically materialistic.

As for the two options, I would actually consider myself the first one. Matter DOES exist. I most certainly do not believe that ONLY matter exists. As I said before : Gravity, all forces, energy etc all appear to be immaterial, and yet all fall under 1. my belief system 2. Under the philosophical doctrine of materialism.

As I have already said: You could call my belief Objectivism. I simply believe that there is an objective world first and foremost, and everything is a consequence of that objective reality. The scientific assumption from this premise is that our individual subjective realities are representative of this objective reality, and so through concession, our understanding of subjective experience may be aligned with objective reality.

And for this sort of belief, materialists get accused of all sorts of crazy things.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
No, but when I get one I will be sure to start a thread asking why everyone is biased against it.

I didn't start this thread so I see no reason why I need to leave this topic so that we can then pick apart my views. But I can assure you that if I get a view, I will be able defend to. You won't be "stuck" with me just telling you it is so.

No one asked you to leave...but, if you actually had a viewpoint of some sort, maybe I would know how to phrase things so you could understand them?

 

[Another God]

Grrrr..using public computers sucks. I retyped the whole last post, I am not retyping this whole post out! (until I get home)

Don't worry sleeth..your turn is coming

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's good Heusdens. I have a question for you. I am assuming that when we say "materialism" we are talking about a view based on the philosophical definition you have provided. If I got that right, then how do you reconcile the statement that science is based on materialism when the physical definition (that I presume science would be using)of matter is different from the definition in the philosophical view of materialism?

Also, your philosphical definition above is much better than the ones that have been presented so far. But another question is this... Does a materialist believe that matter DOES exists? Or do they believe that ONLY matter exists? I assume Zero and AG consider themselves the 2nd one. But then according to your definition, they do not believe that conscious creations(emotions, thoughts) exists. This sounds strange.

Thanks for any answers.

It may sound strange, but that does seem to be what we believe, doesn't it? *grins* And we ROCK because of it! Emotions and thoughts, like I said earlier(for the non-reading crowd), are manefestations of the physical, in a similar way to how pictures on a TV screen are manefestations of the physical realm.

I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

LOL, yep.

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I am still to figure out how this relationship works though. it is quite tricky. but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

And yet you go to that "Philosophy of Love" thread...and OMG...do some people just not get it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
After reading all the posts in this thread, I can tell you a few reasons why I get irritated with SOME materialists (by the way, you don't honestly think that at a physics forum materialists can be biased against do you?).

1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off.

Right off, you show yourself to be awfully biased against me with absolutely no cause...no surprise from you, actually. How do you think AG and Heusden decide what is material and what is not? Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.

That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief.

Awwww...what standard would you like us to use? What standard CAN there be, besides showing evidence? Please, show me anything that exists, without showing it to me. Just one thing!

3. Half-assed education.

Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity!

Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly believe in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
LOL, yep.

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I am still to figure out how this relationship works though. it is quite tricky. but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

And yet you go to that "Philosophy of Love" thread...and OMG...do some people just not get it?

What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

Maybe its some sort of karma thing. I have copped a lot of crap in the past for expressing my views. Maybe now its my rest time, and your turn to cop the crap?

Or maybe not.

Ummm...more likely, it has something to do with the way you assert yourself, and the way I claim that "I believe this, I think this is the truth, and these are my reasons..but if you can show me why I am wrong, then please tell me". (And maybe my signature helps lighten the blow too?

Seriously though, i have copped so much **** over the years for expressing my views, and it is only thanks to this site that I have gradually taught myself to be able to express my opinions without insulting people (too much) and without causing too much raucus.

i could be wrong though.

 

[TENYEARS]

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

Yes AG, but since you still have not experienced this very passage you wrote, you will argue the way you do. When you understand the nature of what you say above you will have to reword it slighty and then you will know what the trinity is. Not until.


Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly believe in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

Zero, books? You have to read books to give you a qasi understanding of what you are to lazy to figure out yourself. The mind will lead you everywhere but where you don't want to go. Only when you want to go nowhere will you begin to understand. You are afraid it will take to long, that you will waste your life and no answers will come because there aren't any. If that is the case why to you waste your time reading books for answers to people who seem to profess and understanding of their experiences?

I had some visions come true and some people I work with knew about them. In a conversation which was going on as I was about to leave the building from five different people from differnt parts of the world with different views came five turning heads all with the same words on their lips in a conversation I was barely in. The words were in unison "we were afraid it would take to long".

Truth is not a magic thing. It exists in accordance with the materialistic view because it is pure materalism and is based on the law of conservation of matter and energy. Do you know what that is?

 

[rocket art]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you support that with a little elaboration?

Hi. This is in catching up with the question on page 2. Your patience will be appreciated.

I was addressing the concept straight to the point and exposing the mask. It is inevitable that in every philosophical perspective, they had been subjectively approached(not subjectively defined) by individual/s. Materialism however attempts to scheme the concept of reality by manipulating objectivity and subjectively defining (rather than subjectively approaching)it, which will eventually fall into the primitive wiles of human folly, i.e. selfishness, greed; not surprisingly for it limits the human capacity for another's subjective control. Materialism, due to subjective manipulation, refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality for in so doing it may manipulate its version of "reality". Rather than seeking answer or being in harmony or balance, or being holistic in perspective, materialism refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality but rather pretends to claim to know reality only by what is seen, then subjugates and imprisons it by setting limits and boundaries, rendering it manipulated for, materialistically speaking (because it can't understand the abstract notion of selflessness), selfish purposes. We exist beyond lightspeed, this is not the only dimension. Matter, in its certain dimension, cannot exceed lightspeed.


I tend to consider materialism, for its subjective bias as proven thru history, not as a science but a modern day occult. Rather than using such as tool, it had been made into manipulative institution. There was this saying "There is a Lie that tell of nothing but truth."
I guess that describes materialism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by rocket art
Hi. This is in catching up with the question on page 2. Your patience will be appreciated.

I was addressing the concept straight to the point and exposing the mask. It is inevitable that in every philosophical perspective, they had been subjectively approached(not subjectively defined) by individual/s. Materialism however attempts to scheme the concept of reality by manipulating objectivity and subjectively defining (rather than subjectively approaching)it, which will eventually fall into the primitive wiles of human folly, i.e. selfishness, greed; not surprisingly for it limits the human capacity for another's subjective control. Materialism, due to subjective manipulation, refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality for in so doing it may manipulate its version of "reality". Rather than seeking answer or being in harmony or balance, or being holistic in perspective, materialism refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality but rather pretends to claim to know reality only by what is seen, then subjugates and imprisons it by setting limits and boundaries, rendering it manipulated for, materialistically speaking (because it can't understand the abstract notion of selflessness), selfish purposes. We exist beyond lightspeed, this is not the only dimension.


I tend to consider materialism, for its subjective bias as proven thru history, not as a science but a modern day occult. Rather than using such as tool, it had been made into manipulative institution. There was this saying "There is a Lie that tell of nothing but truth."
I guess that describes materialism.

Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not claim that matter only exists in visible form, and the exploration of nature through science is proof of that.
Nobody has "seen" electrons or protons or magnetic fields and such.

What mystery and essence are you speaking of here, please reveal us that mystic concept of your thought so we can explore that "truth".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Right off, you show yourself to be awfully biased against me with absolutely no cause...no surprise from you, actually. How do you think AG and Heusden decide what is material and what is not? Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

Originally posted by Zero
Awwww...what standard would you like us to use? What standard CAN there be, besides showing evidence? Please, show me anything that exists, without showing it to me. Just one thing!

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

Originally posted by Zero
I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly believe in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity."

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

I, for one, don't hate you Zero. Though you style makes it difficult to love you. At times it comes across as insultingly arrogant, condecendingly superior and lacking respect. Thats your style and I am learning to live with it and not take it personal. In our discussion in the other thread I saw none of this and enjoyed mentally sparing with you tremendously.

AG and T-Y have the idea in mind if they don't actually state it.
It is not that we disagree that only the material or objective can be shown to exist by science. It is the conclusion that therefore only the material can and does exist. It is the exclusivity of the statement the bothers us. As if you were saying that you and only you have the truth and the rest of us are childish fools believing in fairy tales for disagreeing with you. Sound familiar?

For one thing the conclusion does not follow. is not obvious and is logically invalid. The absence of evidence or proof can not and does not disprove anything or that something does not exist or that is true or false

You may be a materialist or an objectivist or a material objectivist and have truth and science on your side supporting everything you say and no one can disagree with you or you position. It is when you step beyound materialism and objectivism and say that nothing else such as subjectivity can not and does not exist, that you are attacked for you logical blunder and unsupported unscientific overstatement.
Then in your endearing way defy anyone to prove you wrong and insult them when they try.

See this is why we hate you but love AG.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

That's a personal problem you should keep to yourself, I think...you hate me because of what you think my motives are, based on some typed words on a screen? Like I said, keep it to yourself, and see if you can't refute my posts.

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

I used the telekinesis as my example, specifically because I [/i]DON'T[/i] believe it exists. But, if ever a confirmed, repeatable experiment were done by respected sources, I would have no choice, because of my philosophy, to accept it. It is ALL about the evidence: what kind, from what source, determines what can be considered real.

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

How do you know this? Because if I studied correctly, I would absolutely HAVE to agree with you? LMAO

[/quote]If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.[/quote] If I divide a model without relativity, the model works for the most part, after all. There would be some mysteries, but for day to day stuff it works fine. The part where my philosophy comes in is that I would not make up some mystical mumbo-jumbo to explain away the parts I don't understand.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Bully for them? They looked in themselves, and found something besides intestines? LOL, seriously, I don't see how you accumulate experience by looking inside yourself, to me that would create the opposite situation. Plus, wouldn't a person who wants to find something 'special' within themselves eventually 'find' it, whether it exists or not?

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

I have a perfect right to demand evidence. It doesn't prove them wrong, of course, but that isn't the point. The point is, if something exists, it can be observed by more than one person, in my philosophy. If you cannot demonstrate it to me, its effects are exactly the same as if it doesn't exist at all.

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

Why would I want to evaluate their experience? It doesn't do anything, does it?

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Well, since no one has demonstrated the existence of 'something more', why should I chase after it? And why do you cling to the notion that there MUST be something more, that you fully understand cannot be shown to exist? Because you have an emotional need, perhaps?

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

1) you should re-read the evidence...they are getting closer to demonstrating it, and 'chemogenesis' is the only idea I know of with any demonstrated evidence whatsoever. Sounds like you are a creationist, which brings up all sorts of problems beyond the scope of this thread. I'll not comment, except to ask where you get your information on this subject?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

I'm still waiting for your evidence, boss. Where is teh evidence I am overlooking? It, to my knowledge, doesn't exist, but if you would be kind enough to point it out to me...

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity." [/B]

The real story of bias is how you expect anyone to accept your lack of evidence as being equal to evidence.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I, for one, don't hate you Zero. Though you style makes it difficult to love you. At times it comes across as insultingly arrogant, condecendingly superior and lacking respect. Thats your style and I am learning to live with it and not take it personal. In our discussion in the other thread I saw none of this and enjoyed mentally sparing with you tremendously.

AG and T-Y have the idea in mind if they don't actually state it.
It is not that we disagree that only the material or objective can be shown to exist by science. It is the conclusion that therefore only the material can and does exist. It is the exclusivity of the statement the bothers us. As if you were saying that you and only you have the truth and the rest of us are childish fools believing in fairy tales for disagreeing with you. Sound familiar?

For one thing the conclusion does not follow. is not obvious and is logically invalid. The absence of evidence or proof can not and does not disprove anything or that something does not exist or that is true or false

You may be a materialist or an objectivist or a material objectivist and have truth and science on your side supporting everything you say and no one can disagree with you or you position. It is when you step beyound materialism and objectivism and say that nothing else such as subjectivity can not and does not exist, that you are attacked for you logical blunder and unsupported unscientific overstatement.
Then in your endearing way defy anyone to prove you wrong and insult them when they try.

See this is why we hate you but love AG.

Then you guys have been misreading me, or I haven't made myself clear enough. I have stated several times(inculding in my last response that I made before seeing yours) that 'things unseen' do not exist 'for practical purposes', which is different than saying they cannot exist, and I know they cannot ever be shown to exist. In a way, I guess it is true that I'm not looking for truth. I'm looking for usefulness, for a practical explanation of things.

Let's say you have a spirit companion. Your spirit companion stands directly behind you at all times, except when you are sleeping, in which case it departs. It only hears and sees what you see, it doesn't have any special knowledge that you don't already have. Now, try to prove it to a materialist, and you will be told it is a trick your mind is playing on you. Some materialists might say that this disproves the spirit's existence. Now me, on the other hand, I would say that for practical purposes, this is 'true', while making no absolute claim about the existence or nonexistance of that spirit. I can't make a claim, because there is no evidence. I can, however, feel confident that it does not exist.

 

[Royce]

It is true then that I have been misreading you especially in other threads. (This is why I thought you may have been widening or changing your stance in this thread earlier.) I presumed too much myself and I apologize for that and for lumping you in with the other exclusive materialist. (Did I just coin a new phrase?)
We still disagree in that you will only accept scientific proof where none can exist. Science is only a tool and not the only tool for acquiring and expanding knowledge. Nor is science perfect even in the limited field that it was designed for. It is the best we have been able to come up with so far for the purpose of studying the physical world. It has been wrong before, is and will undoubtedly be wrong again. It should not be the sole criteria or tool we use to study the entire realm of reality.
It is like looking at the world through an old black and white TV instead of looking at it in 3D and full color. This of course is my opinion only.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity."

Materialist never argue against the "there is something more" thesis, since materialist have the point of view that matter is infinite and eternal, and since we only see a small fraction of that, there has definitely got to be "something more".

So, that is really NOT the issue.

The issue is wether or not that "something more" exists either in objectively - material - form, that is wether it can be known directly or indirectly to the mind, or of that denotes something not objectively.

Some people put likewise claims on the table for subjective entities or spirits and so forth. Many theists claim that God is a necessary being which exists in subjective form, and has to account for the objective existence of the material world. God has had to exists therefore in consciouss form before the material world itself existed.
The position of God however, in regard to the claims that God is an objective reality, leads however to the following analysis:

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
It may sound strange, but that does seem to be what we believe, doesn't it? *grins* And we ROCK because of it! Emotions and thoughts, like I said earlier(for the non-reading crowd), are manefestations of the physical, in a similar way to how pictures on a TV screen are manefestations of the physical realm.

My question to Heusden still stands. Thoughts and emotions are not defined as material, BY HIS DEFINITION. I didn't state this. He did. So I am asking him if a materialists disbelieves that thoughts exists? It makes no sense if they do and I'm assuming he will agree with me here and straighten out where I'm misunderstanding the definitions.

I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

And what I've been trying to tell you is that the fact that you think some people could accept something so ridiculous explains why you are as impatient as you are on this topic but tt is a much better theory that these people are using a different definition from you. I have found that in many cases, if someones view appears to completely contradict itself, especially IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, then there is probably something I have misunderstood about their view.

There's some good advice.