Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.



It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!


(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO)

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

Linking to my last post, I would ask, if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yeah, what do you say we get our minds together and comtemplate on it!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Now I will risk making Les gringe. I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. . . . WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"!

Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!


(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO)

Yes, but if we do have such a capacity, why do we have this means at our disposal? And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God? Both of which go back a long ways by the way ...

Therefore, why would it be so wrong to consider the possibility that this might be the means by which to make the "God connection?" It only seems like the "next logical" thing to do.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

Now that we've made up I hate risk spoiling it but I suppose I should be totally accurate.

When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

yeah I cringed a bit on the word "higher" my self. Perhaps "more evolved" is better?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God?

Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip?

Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway.

LOL, now you are just making stuff up!

 

[Iacchus32]

While I suppose meditation could just be a means by which to access the dopamine in the brain? In which case that would be the "natural" cause and effect of the whole thing now wouldn't it?

Hmm ... even so, maybe they could use meditation as a means to treat/prevent Parkinson's disease?

 

[Pyrite]

So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

Yes, and if science were somehow in its "speculative nature" of objectivity able to determine this, just think of all the recalculations that would have to be made!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one perceives as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.)

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!


You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

 

[Pyrite]

this post was a mistake. sorry.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
this post was a mistake. sorry.

LOL

 

[Pyrite]

I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time I've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation.

Science does explore meditation.

Part of my job in working in the UNSW Biomedical library, is photocopying articles for students studying off campus (honours, PHD sort of students). And one of those students is quite obviously studying the effects of meditation (or something), because each month I probably photocopy about 30 or 40 articles on Meditation. This has been happening for about 8 months now. There is TONS of research on Meditation.

But hmm...I think I have a contention with your earlier post... I'll come back to that when I have finished reading all of the posts.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is.

I respect you for having avoided saying it, and now expressing it as an 'opinion' etc, but I do just want to take this moment to observe that this is exactly the sort of thing that Zero and myself (as well sa many others) get annoyed at with the anti-materialists...

When they do something like what you do, and then go about claiming that this stands as proof of a soul. Or even evidence. This doesn't even stand as evidence in my mind, and I would maintain that stance even if I was to experience it myself (because of the pure subjective nature of it) (although, hmmm...good counter point right about here would be: Of course the soul is purely subjective.)(But I don't like that option. I probably have a reason for not liking it which isn't detrimental to the second argument you presented, but I can't be bothered thinking of it right now...)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world.

Let mne just reiterate a few points : Experience = subjective, and objective cannot be experienced. Objective must be translated into subjective before it can be experienced. How accurately it is translated is the issue.

What that experience means...that is entirely subjective. There is no objective meaning.

A huge proportion of Science is interpretting the data. Trying to discern meaning in the results...

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"!

Perhaps. but what sparked this insight? Why would you postulate that?

Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.

Linking with my statements above, do you really think 'Objectifying' our perception of reality would help? Do you think taking meaning away from our daily lives would help?

I believe we are perfectly* evolved to interact without environment. We percieve our objective environment on a perfectly well balanced subjective ground, and then that perception is understood quickly and meaningfully.

The scientific requirement to reduce things to lower levels of objective understanding is a strange one, and only appropriate in that isolated sphere. (ie: In the sphere of making absolute statements about what things are, or how things work) Once we know how things work etc, then we need to understand that and apply our meanings to it (without forgetting that it, in itself, contains no inherent meanings).



So in reply to the concept at large being discussed here: The concept of meditation allowing you access to a special type of perception: I doubt it is possible. Meditation may serve many many practical things: EG Meditation is an internal way of accessing the typically subconscious controls of your body. It is likely that meditation allows the meditator to alter physiological aspects which are normally below the conscious control level, and it may allow the meditator to access particular mental drugs etc which normally only occur with particular external stimulus etc...but these effects are in no way a reflection of external universal truths. (other than the fact that for every subjective experience, an objective brain function is occurring. (as it by todays understanding mostly likely seems to be.)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time I've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.


this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

Jeez, you DID read all of it? DAMN!

Well, what is there to discuss? Seriously, tell me which point would you like to discuss, specifically, and we'll do it up proper!

 

[Another God]

PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.




PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Pyrite

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it.

There is good reason for that. If we were to discuss every topic that 'could be' then there would be an infinite high pile of papers requesting science to address the possibility.

The burden of proof is a practical thing, which has very important consequences.

We will discuss anything, as long as there is a reason to discuss it other than "I think..." or "This book says..." or "I had a dream..."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.




PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

Yeah, but you don't get to feel all groovy when you deal with 'cold hard facts', you know?

 

[Pyrite]

Jeez, you DID read all of it? DAMN!

Yep. though I can't say I didn't think about just skipping ahead.}:)

Well, what is there to discuss? Seriously, tell me which point would you like to discuss, specifically, and we'll do it up proper!

In this issue, not much. I was just injecting it into the conversation because i felt it was being avoided. Also, it would fit with you're idea that meditation only helps us see ourselves.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Pyrite
It's not just that you won't believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

I was going to say it "might" be it, but my computer crashed while I composed, and then I got caught up in other things.

The problem with throwing around a term like "soul" is that we don't know what the person who first applied it referred to. Worse, today everybody, whether fer it or agin' it, has their own conception of soul.

To try an analogy, say you grew up in the middle of a desert, and the biggest body of water you, and everyone else living there, ever saw was a reflection at the bottom of a well.

Then you get a chance to travel, and on your journey you visit the Mediterranean. You go back to your village and desribe what you experienced, and people write it down to save it for posterity.

Two thousand years elapse, and during that time this account of a sea is famous. There are scholars working on it, there are cults devoted to it, and there are anti-sea people who hate the concept because they've never seen such a thing.

What is really strange is that every single person debating the possibililty of a sea has never personally taken the time to travel and go see for themselves!

So we are back to . . . what does the word "soul" refer to? I admit I suspect what I feel inside is something keeping me alive . . .breathing me, blinking my eyes, and making wounds heal. Is it my "soul"?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
Science does explore meditation.

Part of my job in working in the UNSW Biomedical library, is photocopying articles for students studying off campus (honours, PHD sort of students). And one of those students is quite obviously studying the effects of meditation (or something), because each month I probably photocopy about 30 or 40 articles on Meditation. This has been happening for about 8 months now. There is TONS of research on Meditation.

But hmm...I think I have a contention with your earlier post... I'll come back to that when I have finished reading all of the posts.

Meditation is just a word, and people apply it to lots of things. If you sit quietly and relax your body from head to toe, that is called meditation. If you repeat a mantra, that is called meditation. If you stare at a candle, that is called meditation. As I mentioned in an earlier post, all that has proven to be physically beneficial.

No one has ever studied union. Not ever. And if some fool were stupid enough to submit to a study, it would not reveal a single solitary thing about what is going on inside.

This is exactly why I didn't want to talk about it . . . I will never learn! You are turning it around, defining it so you can fit it into some little box you have all ready, and then dismissing it with sophist gems like this, "If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it? Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science) The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable."

Who defines progress? You? How do you know what sort of progress has been made by the people I mentioned? Did you go study them after all? You know, what is the point of debating this. You are going find a way to state what you believe is the Truth, and you aren't going to let anything so trivial as history or evidence not to your liking stand in the way. As for me . . . I am done with this ridiculous exercise in self affirmation.

 

[Royce]

Science is the tool with which we study and come to know material and objective reality.

Meditation is the tool with which we study and come to know ourselves and subjective reality.

We can use meditation also to better understand what science has shown us. This is IMO simply because with a quiet mind we are better able to see the relationships between different ideas. Our minds are not too busy being cognizant of everything going on around us and within us that it can better see the big picture.

As AG pointed out, we cannot really separate the objective and subjective for it is only through our sujective knowledge that we can know the objective. Meditation allows us to see reality as it really is rather than as our distorted image of it just as it allows us to see ourselves as we really are rather than as our self image.

Les has discribed what we sometime experience better than anyone I have ever read and certainly better than I could try to myself. Possibly because of my upbringing or culture, When I am experiencing such a 'union' I feel or sense or am aware of a presence that is an intregal part of me yet is not me. It is as real if not more real than I am. This is why I am so spiritual. To me this presence is the spirit of God within me. Through this spirit I come to know and understand reality better. It isn't magical nor mystical. It is not fairytales nor Santa Claus. It is real, more real than what we normally think of as reality and it is natural, more natural than we think of as nature. It is the epitome of reality and nature itself.

It is intensely personal and meaningful to me so when Zero and others make light of it even in humor it sometimes offends me or ruffles my feathers and I become defensive. This is my shortcoming and I am coming to realize it. It is still so new and so meaningful to me that I am sensative about it as when I entered puberty and was sensative to the changes taking place in my body. As I mature I will become less sensative and better able to see the humor behind such statements just as I have come to appreciate Zero's humor more and more. There are times still that I have to remind myself that this is just his style and hopfully humor. Only then can I LOL and really think its funny.
Zero, could this too be part of your sensitiity to our idealistic or subjective remarks?

 

[FZ+]

Gee... I missed a 178 post long joyous argument? Damn.

Ok, I'll throw some random points in and see if any of them have any relevance. Or if any turn out to be right. Prepare to hate me!


There seems to be some confusion over materialism, and reductionism. Materialism is the idea that things are explainable by observable, independently real rules, and elements. Reductionism is that the behaviour of the elements are the overiding part of the system. The one does not neccessarily follow the other! It is very well possible to talk about the mind as a holistic, but definitely material process, and that thoughts fit into this as exhibitions of behaviour on a complex scale.

The second problem is "reality". In materialist terms, reality refers to only the external, independent reality. As correctly stated, this is accessable only via subjective perceptions, and so to a materialist, what you feel is only a virtual reality. To a spiritualist, the reverse is true - seeing is believing, literally, and what is real is what is perceived as real. In effect, we are talking in two difference languages here. So, is the feeling of union "real". In spiritualist terms, it is what is given to the mind, and so it is more or less defined as real. In materialist terms, as it is not reflected in a solid external reality, it is at best a construct of different effects.

As well as this, the idea of knowledge itself is different. In materialist terms, knowledge = an improvement of our internal view of the universe to be more reflective of manifestations of the "real" external reality. In spiritualist terms, we mean an extension to our quality of understanding, our texture of thought, our sense of beauty. (There are of course overlaps.) So, in response to the meditation point, both are in fact correct - the meditation obviously adds no material knowledge, but it also obvious improves the subjective "quality of thought", and hence gives spiritual understanding. Like the study of an equation that is unconnected to the real world, but is beautiful in the mind.

(I probably hold the blame for starting the Santa Claus thing, once upon a time. But the point originally made was to analyse WHY we ridicule it, and so to point out an apparent inconsistency between the way we ridicule ideas we don't like, but reject the same attack on ideas we do. Or maybe I was just drunk.)

Ok, time now to draw the vast, exaggerated conclusion. In the end, we can't really say that either materialism or idealism/spiritualism is proven to be wrong. To a materialist's side, the other side is clearly and logically inconsistent with materialism, and so is hence "wrong". And vice versa. BUT this is a reflection on the priorities and criterias we put on what is true, and so we can't use one to disprove the other. In the end, they probably exhibit different facets of the way the mind thinks of things and so you can't put down one as right. And so, we can't say that bias against materialism is justified, only cautioning against absolutes of either position. The two can't mix (we can't confuse spiritual feeling for material causes), but should stand together. With a minor restraining order.

Ok, I henceforth order everyone to hug and make up, or stone me to a pulp.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Let mne just reiterate a few points : Experience = subjective, and objective cannot be experienced. Objective must be translated into subjective before it can be experienced. How accurately it is translated is the issue.

I understand this. Based on some of your comments below, it seems you have misunderstood me.

[/b] Perhaps. but what sparked this insight? Why would you postulate that?

As Les has been telling you AG, there is a long History of people who have an experience here that apparently has NOT been studied. So I would postulate this because something may need to be postulated.

[/b]Linking with my statements above, do you really think 'Objectifying' our perception of reality would help? Do you think taking meaning away from our daily lives would help?

I think you have mis-understood. You have claimed that this experience that Les is speaking of is all subjective. And these subjective endeavers cannot reveal truth. But then you admit that all experience is subjective. So what's the difference? The difference is that when science is willing to look at something it can verify it by having multiple people witnessing the same experience. I used the word "objectify" and perhaps that is what threw you off. Verify is a better word. So my point was that this should be no different. We can verify this experience by having multiple people do it. Once you do this you may find that it is actually "less" subjective than your current view because it removes more of the filters. But I then said that we have not been able to reach this "verification" stage because no one who would be in a position to verify it (scientists) are willing to consider it.

I believe we are perfectly* evolved to interact without environment. We percieve our objective environment on a perfectly well balanced subjective ground, and then that perception is understood quickly and meaningfully.

Thats' it AG. Nail them shingles down from the basement! I am sure that worms, dogs, and insects all think the same things but many people would argue that they are all at different levels of awareness from humans. If your statement above were not true then you would not be around to say it. I don't think this rebuttal means very much.

The concept of meditation allowing you access to a special type of perception: I doubt it is possible.

You should have told me that you doubted this AG. I would never have spent anytime talking about it if I had only known. Now I know it is bogus

Meditation may serve many many practical things: EG Meditation is an internal way of accessing the typically subconscious controls of your body. It is likely that meditation allows the meditator to alter physiological aspects which are normally below the conscious control level, and it may allow the meditator to access particular mental drugs etc which normally only occur with particular external stimulus etc...but these effects are in no way a reflection of external universal truths. (other than the fact that for every subjective experience, an objective brain function is occurring. (as it by todays understanding mostly likely seems to be.)

I agree with Les on this. In my readings the word metitation is placed on just about any activity that people do that makes them feel like a deep person. I don't even bother reading most of it. All of your comments above may be true. As are all my comments. The only way to know for sure is not to "doubt it" and then ignore it. Study it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok, I henceforth order everyone to hug and make up, or stone me to a pulp. [/B]

You will get no stone from me FZ. There are a few targets much more worthy of every stone I have. That was a great post. I'll need to read over it a few times to see where I may have questions but the picture you paint is somewhat complicated but yet so typical. The "black and white" minded people would never think deep enough to see the real issue you have pointed out. Good thoughtful post.

 

[Zero]

I don't know if any of that was 'deep' or not.

 

[Royce]

Good to see you back FZ+. Unfortunately you missed the stoning ritual too. We're all being so nice and considerate its almost sickening. Even Zero has somewhat curbed his acerbic tongue. Your post was well put. I'll throw no objective stones; but it did seem a bit tame for you.

Is christmas coming or something or is just me. All this warm fuzzy feeling that we may be reaching if not a concensous at least a neutral ground where we can all agreeably agree to disagree is not at all like our normal no quarter asked and none given attitude.

Enough of this. Turn loose the dogs of war and let the games begin. Yes I know I'm mixing metaphors, next I'll be resorting to punjitsu.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by FZ+
Gee... I missed a 178 post long joyous argument? Damn.

Thank God you still made it though. This was great work. Thanks again to people like you who come in and straighten out the basic facts which everyone seems to forget/misplace in the midst of a heated discussion. It is crazy how easy it is to forget your own beliefs when you are being challenged on other fronts...

Strange too.

In the end, we can't really say that either materialism or idealism/spiritualism is proven to be wrong. To a materialist's side, the other side is clearly and logically inconsistent with materialism, and so is hence "wrong". And vice versa. BUT this is a reflection on the priorities and criterias we put on what is true, and so we can't use one to disprove the other. In the end, they probably exhibit different facets of the way the mind thinks of things and so you can't put down one as right. And so, we can't say that bias against materialism is justified, only cautioning against absolutes of either position. The two can't mix (we can't confuse spiritual feeling for material causes), but should stand together. With a minor restraining order.

This gave me a couple of new thoughts.

1. this isn't really new, but a definite belief of mine: There is a Truth, and it is real, and it is singular. It is the Objective (no matter what type of universe this is, there is still objective factuality about it, and that factuality is the truth (whether anyone can know it or not)

2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.

Rubbish! Aside from the fact that you're a human being (in lineage at least), you are in no ways "qualified" to make such an assumption.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?

Once again, nothing but "superficial" reasoning. Spiritual stuff? ... How superficial can you get?

 

[Zero]

One of the main objections to a materialist worldview, I think, is that there are rules and boundaries. You are NOT allowed to simply make up ideas and concepts as you see fit. If you want to know something, you actually have to pick up a book, or do an experiment, instead of doing breathing exercises in yout bedroom. In a materialist worldview, some ideas are simly 'wrong'(unsupported by evidence.)

With a more 'spiritual' worldview, things are more democratic. Anyone with a harebrained, crackpot idea can join in, and is allowed just as much say as someone who has actually put in some sort of work into it. The best part of it is, you can always simply create excuses for the failures of any idea, since the idea is often completely imaginary to begin with. And, of course, unlike materialism, you can always attack the other side for not being open-minded enough. Materialists don't have to be too awfully open-minded, after all...

...WE HAVE EVIDENCE!

 

[Royce]

I'm sorry but brainwave activity or MRI scans do not prove that subjective thought is solely caused by the electrochemical property of brain cells. There is no way to prove that thought and knowledge is completely objective in origin. That thought and measured brain activity are linked is fairly obvious; but, Which caused which is not yet proved.

To say that the subjective is caused by the objective is totally unsupported. You have evidence; but of what. I too have evidence that supports that the subjective causes the objective at least within the human brain and body, to which you too say "but, of what."

Zero, for the hundreth time, lack of evidence is proof on nothing nor support of anything. As pointed out, prior to the invention of the mircoscope there was absolutely no evidence that bacterial or single celled life existed. Not so long ago it was a biological accepted truth that no living organism could be less than 200 microns in diameter so none were searched for below that size. Not long ago evidence of fossil life 100 mircons in diameter was accidently found.
Want me to list more? The moons of Jupitur, sunspots, subatomic particles, quarks, quantum, galaxies, expansion of the universe. In short every finding of science at one time was totally unsupported by evidence and thus by your and others thinking proved not to be possible.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm sorry but brainwave activity or MRI scans do not prove that subjective thought is solely caused by the electrochemical property of brain cells. There is no way to prove that thought and knowledge is completely objective in origin. That thought and measured brain activity are linked is fairly obvious; but, Which caused which is not yet proved.

Yeah, but generally, the evidence suggests the materialist outlook, and there is NO evidence for any other explanation.

To say that the subjective is caused by the objective is totally unsupported.

Except the collected evidence of the last century...I suppose we ignore it because it doesn't make us feel good?

You have evidence; but of what. I too have evidence that supports that the subjective causes the objective at least within the human brain and body, to which you too say "but, of what."

We're waiting for teh evidence chum...what page is this thread on?

Zero, for the hundreth time, lack of evidence is proof on nothing nor support of anything. As pointed out, prior to the invention of the mircoscope there was absolutely no evidence that bacterial or single celled life existed. Not so long ago it was a biological accepted truth that no living organism could be less than 200 microns in diameter so none were searched for below that size. Not long ago evidence of fossil life 100 mircons in diameter was accidently found.

And until someone invented a microscope, people were absolutely CORRECT to discount the idea of microorganisms!

Want me to list more? The moons of Jupitur, sunspots, subatomic particles, quarks, quantum, galaxies, expansion of the universe. In short every finding of science at one time was totally unsupported by evidence and thus by your and others thinking proved not to be possible.

But you notice how science keeps refining its act, while the 'other team' continues to make the exact same claims for sometimes thousands of years, and still nothing that could be considered evidence turns up?

 

[FZ+]

Royce: Yessir! I will begin the verbal punishment promptly!

Another God:

1. this isn't really new, but a definite belief of mine: There is a Truth, and it is real, and it is singular. It is the Objective (no matter what type of universe this is, there is still objective factuality about it, and that factuality is the truth (whether anyone can know it or not)

2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?

Ok, as all knows, I am partially playing the devil's advocate here, as I am a materialist, and generally agree in the greater importance of the material side.

But...
The point I made is that Spiritualism isn't really about finding a cause in terms of objective truth. What is shown above is that spiritualism doesn't match up to the materialist mode of thinking.

As an example, say we look at biology, and ask why do birds have wings? (This may not be exactly right as an example, but I'll daringly press on anyways) The strict materialist cause is that the birds have it coded in the genes, which leads to the production of proteins etc culminating in the production of a wing. The spiritualist answer, which emphasises abstract value is that birds have wings to allow them to fly.

Now, which is the "right" answer?

Clearly in this case, as in most cases, materialism provides the more "fundamental answer" as far as physical reality is concerned. The spiritualist answer however isn't wrong - it doesn't explain how it really happens, but it provides internal understanding. But the thing pivots on the aspect of "benefit". In terms of material benefit, of course materialism explains more materially.

Side note: I am distinguishing spiritual answers from "vague material answers". In effect, IMHO, to say that a spirit causes rain is in reality a material answer, based on the physical action of an object (a spirit) that just happens to be undetected as of yet. It's just a difference in the name, not the nature of the statement. If we rename soul to say, "mind particle", then we can pretty much tell that the existence of an entity in the traditional sense being physically reponsible for mind functions is very much a materialist problem.

Where spiritualists really get into the problem is in terms of the whole of the brain. The way the individual cells act to each other is pretty much a material case, but the spiritual argument is that the final way it works, the flow of the charges, has greater significance than an electrochemical reaction. Ie. the essential nature of the brain isn't ion channels etc, but an abstract value called the mind. It's the overall quality of how it acts that is considered, not the material details. Spiritualist answers are almost by definition things that cannot be proven or disproven by material evidence.

Objective materially causes subjective. (Though LG's old mind hypothesis is an alternative, his Ubermind is just objective in disguise) Subjective spiritually is what makes objective important, or accessible, or interesting, or real. Two sides of a coin, sort of.

Any questions?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
One of the main objections to a materialist worldview, I think, is that there are rules and boundaries. You are NOT allowed to simply make up ideas and concepts as you see fit. If you want to know something, you actually have to pick up a book, or do an experiment, instead of doing breathing exercises in yout bedroom. In a materialist worldview, some ideas are simly 'wrong'(unsupported by evidence.)

With a more 'spiritual' worldview, things are more democratic. Anyone with a harebrained, crackpot idea can join in, and is allowed just as much say as someone who has actually put in some sort of work into it. The best part of it is, you can always simply create excuses for the failures of any idea, since the idea is often completely imaginary to begin with. And, of course, unlike materialism, you can always attack the other side for not being open-minded enough. Materialists don't have to be too awfully open-minded, after all...

...WE HAVE EVIDENCE!

I thought with FZ's post we had moved beyond these simplistic black and white conceptions, no?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok, as all knows, I am partially playing the devil's advocate here, as I am a materialist, and generally agree in the greater importance of the material side.

Okay, just so long as we understand. I thought maybe you had taken a brief "spiritual reprieve" and were meditating on top of a mountain or something? Now you just knock it off, okay?

 

[FZ+]

No, I might just be possessed by the spirit of the transcended master Carlos...(Send orders for my bath water today!)

But hey, only partially devil's advocate! I'm saying spiritualism and materialism can both exist.. maybe.

 

[Royce]

Maybe because I'm a computer hardware man I have a mind set that wires and switches relatate to neurons and synapsi (sp?). None of what a computer actually does has any meaning to us unless we give it meaning in the form of codes and programs. "Let 110101110101 = 'Mind' and then do this with it." Even the one's and zero's are symbols for the presence or absence of a voltage level.
I see the same thing happening in the brain. The brain with all of its neurons and interconnections and electrochemical activity is just the hardware that makes the mind possible. It is the mind, FZ+'s spirit, that gives it meaning. The brain is the objective and the mind the subjective of our mind/brain. One is no good without the other.

AS I have said so many times I am convinced that the objective material realm is real and science is the best tool at present that we have to study it. I also believe that the subjective or mental realm is just as real and contains science but science has no way to study it. Example: knowledge. We all know what it is and we all have at least some part of it. Science is used to advandce our knowledge of the objective world. Ask science what knowledge is and it hasn't got a clue. (Duh, its in the brain and its what we get when we study and learn. Okay proff what klearn and how do we do it? Duh quantum physics explains all of that and we have evidence but nonscientist cannot understand it. But we got proof.)

I also believe that the spiritual realm is just as real and sperate from the objective and subjective realm but part of the greater reality. Spirituality is not really the subject here and I don't want to open that can of worms any more than FZ+ has already.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I might just be possessed by the spirit of the transcended master Carlos...(Send orders for my bath water today!)

Would that be for drinking purposes or anointing purposes?

But hey, only partially devil's advocate! I'm saying spiritualism and materialism can both exist.. maybe.

Okay, so here's my take on "the truth" ...


From the thread, The search for truth ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Another God
Objective cannot be experienced, it can only be interpretted, meaning placed on it. Hence we use science to create truths for us, and that is all we will ever know.

How about the "truth of the matter," which is always true? Or else how could we possibly relate to it? -- "the fact" that we're consciously aware. And since when did we need science to determine that?

To carry this a little further, I'm saying that reality is "ever-present," and the truth to that reality will vary significantly, depending upon circumstances. And, although we may wish to call this "subjectivity," it is reality nonetheless. You know, like the reality of who your parents were, the reality of the date you were born, the reality of the house you lived on Second Street, the reality of whether you had measles as a kid or not, etc., etc. In other words it's the reality of "the situation."

So what am saying? ... That everybody has the means by which to establish "the truth," irrespective of the existence of science or not. Meaning, this could very well be the "the truth" -- "of reality" -- that we take with us when we pass on.

 

[rocket art]

Originally posted by Zero
Good for you...that is why only us higher-types can handle being materialists!

(hey, I have to reply)

That's weird, that's not how I tend to see materialists to be. Frankly it bores me for what use does asking questions that already have answers except that it goes round in circles set up at certain boundaries. It would be more challenging for me to find that answers are like questions waiting to unfold (figure that )

 

[Iacchus32]

Indeed ...

Whereas without consciousness -- the very "ground of our being" -- hmm ... what was that you say about gravity? -- we would not be discussing any of this, let alone discussing the nature "of truth." Which is to say, science is not the end all to the discovery of truth, but consciouness is.

Just think of it, where would we all be if we weren't capable, through consciousness, of acknowledging the fact that we exist? There would be no means to judge that anything was ever here!

So you tell me where the beginning of the discovery of truth lies? ...

NOT WITH SCIENCE!

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...when we know that reality can only be discerned though evidence, and we dislike that notion, we start talking about 'truth', a concept that has no objective meaning. Sure, yeah, whatever.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...when we know that reality can only be discerned though evidence, and we dislike that notion, we start talking about 'truth', a concept that has no objective meaning. Sure, yeah, whatever.

Isn't the fact that I'm sitting at my chair typing on the computer evidence enough? Doesn't that belie reality itself? Do I really need to take it any further than that?

Why don't you "get real" man!

 

[Iacchus32]

Yes, the beginning of the discovery of truth begins with both you and me ...