Why the bias against materialism?

[Royce]

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

No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that the material world exists and suggests, models how we think it may work. That is all that the evidence suggests. It does not even look at the subjective. How can scientific evidence suggest anything about something that it does not even acknowledges exists in the first place.

Except the collected evidence of the last century...I suppose we ignore it because it doesn't make us feel good? We're waiting for teh evidence chum...what page is this thread on?

I'm waiting for the same thing pal. Where is your evidence that's been collected for the last hundred years that thought, ideas and knowledge is nothing more than chemistry and neurons, supposition, speculation and inquiery, yes, proof or evidence, no. "What else could it be since I don't acknowledge anything else exists." does not constitute proof, Zero.

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

Hey, you guys are still looking. We found it 3,000 years ago. We try to tell you guys but no you keep looking. Maybe someday you'll find it too, then we'll say; "Told you so."

 

[Zero]

You didn't find anything 3000 years ago, exacept a comfortable myth, to replace the question with a flase answer, to shut up the nagging voice in your head. 3000 years ago, what did people know? For everything they got right, they got something else completely wrong. People managed to build pyramids, but they thought that being stuffed and keeping your organs in jars was the key to eternity. People measured the movement of stars and planets, and scheduled human sacrifice to sun gods at appointed times of the year. Even when they finally figured out that disease wasn't caused by angry spirits, they had no clue but hunches as to what to do about it.

[Let's talk about diseases for a minute. In the materialist worldview, disease is caused by bacteria, viruses, etc., and each disease has a perfectly physical cure. In the non-materialist world, there are auras to be manipulated, magnets cure everything, or you can taked dried rhino penis pills. Sometimes a good fix is to rearrange your furniture(based on 3000 year old decorating for demon-prevention, apparently), or to drink water in which a chemical has been diluted to nonexistance.]

I'm waiting for the same thing pal. Where is your evidence that's been collected for the last hundred years that thought, ideas and knowledge is nothing more than chemistry and neurons, supposition, speculation and inquiery, yes, proof or evidence, no. "What else could it be since I don't acknowledge anything else exists." does not constitute proof, Zero.

ONe side has some sort of evidence, the other side has no sort of evidence, except a 'feeling', based mostly on ego, I think.

 

[Royce]

Zero, somewhere around 3-4,000 years ago the Jewish faith started with Abraham according to the bible and one of the first things it did was do away with human sacrafice and false fire, weather, fertility, etc Gods. This is what I was referring to when I said we found IT. This then can be my evidence that religion changes and for the better.

To reply to your last "feel good" statement: How do you know something? How do any of us actually know something and know it to be true, even something as simple as electrons have a negative charge.? We don't know what an electron is but we know that they exist. We don't know what a charge is but we know that they exist and an electron normally has one that we call negtive but sometimes it can have a positive charge. Okay, that is perfectly acceptable, well know and varifiable; but, how do we know this and how do we know that it is true? How do we know that we know and what is true?

Is it that we feel good, all warm and fuzzy when we think about it and because we want it to be that way because we read it in a fairytale book? No of course not that's absurd.

We could talk all day about what we know and don't know about one particle/wave we call electrons. The point is, we know that they exist and have certain properties and we can make predictions about their behavior. The question remains HOW DO WE KNOW? and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE?

Tell me that, my friend, and I will then tell you how I know that God is and how I know that God created the universe. It ain't because I read it in a fairytale book or a bible or a Physics 101 book either.

 

[Iacchus32]

Truth and Consciousness

Everything that begins with and ends with the truth and, the perception of reality, begins with consciousness, which is strictly a human trait. Which, and I will grant you this much, science -- itself a part of the "human endeavor" -- becomes the "extension of."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, somewhere around 3-4,000 years ago the Jewish faith started with Abraham according to the bible and one of the first things it did was do away with human sacrafice and false fire, weather, fertility, etc Gods. This is what I was referring to when I said we found IT. This then can be my evidence that religion changes and for the better.

To reply to your last "feel good" statement: How do you know something? How do any of us actually know something and know it to be true, even something as simple as electrons have a negative charge.? We don't know what an electron is but we know that they exist. We don't know what a charge is but we know that they exist and an electron normally has one that we call negtive but sometimes it can have a positive charge. Okay, that is perfectly acceptable, well know and varifiable; but, how do we know this and how do we know that it is true? How do we know that we know and what is true?

Is it that we feel good, all warm and fuzzy when we think about it and because we want it to be that way because we read it in a fairytale book? No of course not that's absurd.

We could talk all day about what we know and don't know about one particle/wave we call electrons. The point is, we know that they exist and have certain properties and we can make predictions about their behavior. The question remains HOW DO WE KNOW? and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE?

Tell me that, my friend, and I will then tell you how I know that God is and how I know that God created the universe. It ain't because I read it in a fairytale book or a bible or a Physics 101 book either.

I don't know...but the evidence certainly suggests it. See, this is why I avoid words like 'truth'...they have slippery diefinitions. I prefer to be more exact, like saying 'experimentally verifiable'.
You believe in God because it suits your temperment, I'm sure.

 

[Royce]

I you can hosestly say that you believe in science because it suits your temperment then yes I will agree that that is why I believe I in God.

You seem to have lost interest in this thread too. It has become somewhat of an extension of the last one we were involved in. I do think we've exhausted this subject. We need to find another egually interesting subject that we can go at one another over. I quit but don't concede!

 

[Zero]

I win!

 

[amadeus]

If I may offer my opinion, I think the problem with materialism is that it is essentially inconsistent with our experiences as a whole but no one can easily prove it, for the very fact that materialism is consistent with most aspects of our experience taken in isolation. Because self-consistency in such a large system as the whole of our knowledge is virtually impossible to evaluate on a conscious level, we can only have an intuitive 'feeling' that something is missing, but we have a very hard time understand exactly what is missing.

If we consider a large dictionary as a metaphor, materialism is equivalent to the position that the dictionary is self-explanatory - it doesn't matter which word you look up, the word is always clearly defined in terms of other words in the same dictionary. One may easily get the illusion that all it takes to understand the meaning of all words in the dictionary is to learn their definitions from the dictionary itself. Unless we can clearly demonstrate that, as a whole, all dictionaries are either circular or incomplete, the "materialist" will have an easy time arguing that all there is to know about language is defined in dictionaries.

Of course on an intuitive level most people can understand that dictionaries cannot possibly be complete or un-circular. And here I offer what to me is a very solid argument: when it comes to completeness and circularity, there is no difference whatsoever between a dictionary and the whole of our knowledge, for the simple reason that everything we know can be expressed in words. So the average person understands perfectly why there is and there always will be a gap between our knowledge of reality and reality itself. So the average person comes up with a loosely defined (rather, undefinable) concept which represents that gap. In our culture, the average person refers to that undefinable concept as "God".

Notice that, according to that line of reasoning, when it comes to a rational discussion the materialist will always get the better of it, even if he's ultimately wrong. As far as I'm concerned, the answer to the question "why the bias against materialism" is simply "because it's misleading". But of course that can only be understood in an intuitive manner, which is not to say it's less of a truth, only that it may be very hard to prove.

People managed to build pyramids, but they thought that being stuffed and keeping your organs in jars was the key to eternity.

Just for fun, I'd like to point out that 3,000 years from now people might see far more significance in the custom of burying people in wooden coffins and placing flowers on their tombs than we actually do. We understand very well what coffins and flowers have to do with death; 3,000 years from now people will be deprived of that understanding. You might want to reconsider our beliefs about what people of 3,000 years ago believed - it might turn out we are the foolish ones.

Most respectfully,

Amadeus

 

[Zero]

Amadeus, I would say that your 'intuitive' feeling also comes from a material sourse: your brain. Just because psychology is complicated, that doesn't mean it points to anything besides misplaced survival traits. I'm sure that it has been useful for our survival as a species to grasp for new knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we continue to grasp when we reach understanding, even though our brains may tell us otherwise.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
I win!

NO FAIR! I said I QUIT not I CONCEDE!

What is this reducto axhausto?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Zero
Amadeus, I would say that your 'intuitive' feeling also comes from a material sourse: your brain. Just because psychology is complicated, that doesn't mean it points to anything besides misplaced survival traits. I'm sure that it has been useful for our survival as a species to grasp for new knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we continue to grasp when we reach understanding, even though our brains may tell us otherwise.

Well, where does the concept of "misplaced survival traits" come from? The same brain I'm not supposed to trust?

You have just touched the circularity I'm talking about! In order to assert itself, materialism has to turn against the very thing which created it: the brain. In order to deal with what amounts to philosophical matricide, the materialist asserts that the brains of materialists are superior to the brains of non-materialists based on the assumption that materialism is superior to non-materialism.

I notice most materialists have no trouble accepting the logical limitations of any philosophy, materialism included, if they didn't think a denial of materialism necessarily leads to some form of theism. If that is your concern, then I agree with you, materialism is far superior to theism as an explanation of reality. My only point is that materialism is not as solid a position as materialists try to make it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by amadeus
I notice most materialists have no trouble accepting the logical limitations of any philosophy, materialism included, if they didn't think a denial of materialism necessarily leads to some form of theism. If that is your concern, then I agree with you, materialism is far superior to theism as an explanation of reality. My only point is that materialism is not as solid a position as materialists try to make it.

Hey, who turned out the lights!

 

[FZ+]

amadeus:

I think the problem with materialism is that it is essentially inconsistent with our experiences as a whole but no one can easily prove it

Any idea is fundamentally indeterminate as to it's consistency - such is Godel's theorem. The gist of materialism is the reduction of such inconsistency with regard to physical observation to the limits of possibility. It is not the real stance of materialism to claim in its perfection, and to realize that shortcoming neccessarily exists in all isn't bias against materialism at all. Rather, the stance that a final Truth is attainable, bears less marks of Materialism or Science than of the worst cases of religion. You are talking about absolutism, not materialism/science.


Royce: I agree with most of what you say. But, I'll touch on the religion bit.

How do you know that the progression from human sacrifice was for the better? In objective terms, there is no real thing that states that human sacrifice is bad - turning it around, it can be said that religion has degenerated from such states. (A lighter version of which is currently used by "Evangelicals" in the anti-gay arena) The matter shows the gap here. In terms of religion, it is not really possible to use the quantitative system of materalism. You can only judge such a dynamically changing thing in terms of personal senses of "values". Ie. which is better with respect to you. The way religion changes for the "better" is very different for the way in which science, or materialist views of the world changes for the "better".

I you can hosestly say that you believe in science because it suits your temperment then yes I will agree that that is why I believe I in God.

Technically, that can be said to be true. I believe... or I assume in the effectiveness of science because it suits the way I see the world - as a concrete existence seen through smoked and blurry subjective glass. I don't believe in God, because I find the view beyond more significant than the glass itself.

 

[Zero]

My problem with the non-materialist crowd reminds me of a Brazilian mechanic who came to my workplace promising to make a machine run better. He was trying to make a heat-hardening machine run a lot faster than it was designed to do, and as the metallurgist it was my job to test how well he was progressing. Well, the samples got better, then worse, then better again, and all the while he is just sort of humming and jotting down notes.
Come to find out, he has been changing every variable every single time he brought me a sample, which I didn't catch until he brought me a sample of a different thickness than the previous ones. I tried to explain to him, to no avail, that if he would tweak one variable at a time, get a little more methodical in his tinkering, he could solve the problem more quickly. His hit-and-miss method never did create a solution, because when he did stumble across an effective combination of variables, he had no clue which one caused the improvement.
It is that sort of flailing around for an answer that characterizes non-materialists to me. If they happen to stumble across something useful, they give it a spiritual label, and can't truly say that what they did had any true effect.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
My problem with the non-materialist crowd reminds me of a Brazilian mechanic who came to my workplace promising to make a machine run better. He was trying to make a heat-hardening machine run a lot faster than it was designed to do, and as the metallurgist it was my job to test how well he was progressing. Well, the samples got better, then worse, then better again, and all the while he is just sort of humming and jotting down notes.
Come to find out, he has been changing every variable every single time he brought me a sample, which I didn't catch until he brought me a sample of a different thickness than the previous ones. I tried to explain to him, to no avail, that if he would tweak one variable at a time, get a little more methodical in his tinkering, he could solve the problem more quickly. His hit-and-miss method never did create a solution, because when he did stumble across an effective combination of variables, he had no clue which one caused the improvement.
It is that sort of flailing around for an answer that characterizes non-materialists to me. If they happen to stumble across something useful, they give it a spiritual label, and can't truly say that what they did had any true effect.

Perhaps because we're asked to defend that which is more of a personal and private matter, which is not normally brought up over the typical course of a conversation, and doesn't require we spend a lot of time trying to "convince" others of what we know ... that is, until somebody turns up the heat and puts us on the grill!

I don't know but with me, it seems like every time I'm confronted in this way -- and yes, confronted is the best choice of words -- I'm required to do some sort of "special trick," you know like pull a rabbit out of my hat? All the while with you jeering at me in the background saying, "Where's the proof!?" Indeed a most "untypical" way of conducting business don't you think? And neither does it belie the type of relationship I have with God.

Aside from that though, I've already forgotten about what I've said here. Do you know why? Because it's most "inappropriate" to dwell on such negative things. In which case I can't help you much there either. In the meantime I'll just go back to "knowing that I don't know" (in an unbiased sense), and that's pretty much the end of it. It was like it never happened.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

How do you know that the progression from human sacrifice was for the better? In objective terms, there is no real thing that states that human sacrifice is bad - turning it around, it can be said that religion has degenerated from such states. (A lighter version of which is currently used by "Evangelicals" in the anti-gay arena) The matter shows the gap here. In terms of religion, it is not really possible to use the quantitative system of materalism. You can only judge such a dynamically changing thing in terms of personal senses of "values". Ie. which is better with respect to you. The way religion changes for the "better" is very different for the way in which science, or materialist views of the world changes for the "better".
[/B]

Within the context of what later became the Judeo-Christian religion and its morale/ethical system, human sacrafice was bad and polytheism was bad. Doing away with these practices was good, better, right within their belief system. This, IMO, is the only why we can judge a society, culture or belief system, see the thread "Where is Morality Going." In absolute terms we can't say that those changes were better or worse but then I don't believe that there is such a thing as absolute right, wrong better or worse even in my theistic belief system.

I don't see how the concepts of better or worse could even exist in a self-consistant materialistic paradigm. But then, in my view, "self-consistant materialstic paradigm is an oxymoron.

As for the rest of these later posts I think that AG, amadeus, have it right or at least more to my way of thinking. The objective material world exists and is real. We can only know this physically real world subjectively. All knowledge is subjective and the subjective exists in reality every bit as much as the material.

Subjectivity however is not material. This I think is where the problem arises. How can something immaterial have actual existence in the real world? This is dependent on our definition and understanding of the term existence. It takes a bit of brain expansion to accept the real existence of something that is purely immaterial.

How can I explain it to an 8 year old in terms that s/he could understand much less to a determined materialist in terms that s/he could and would accept. I have not been able to do so with Zero and he is one of the better minds that I have run into lately. He will at least discuss it where most won't even listen or hear my words much less consider my ideas. We, of course, have to pay the price for his indulgence by reading his abusive quips and acerbic attempts at humor. But then, I love(d) Don Rickles humor.

 

[Iacchus32]

What about the guy they hung up on a cross? Wouldn't that be called human sacrifice? And what about the rest of the "Christians" that were put to their death?

 

[Royce]

No, that was criminal punishment done by the polytheistic Romans.

 

[Iacchus32]

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38).

I'm not so sure that there's anything about Christianity (or, perhaps religion in general) that doesn't require us to make some sort of sacrifice. Indeed, I think it was readily understood, that in order to take up the faith, one may very likely be putting their life on the line.

 

[FZ+]

Funny you say that, because there is some evidence that the Romans doing the persecution considered the Christians to be a religion based on anarchy and canabalism(!).

(Also, might note rise in belief in martyrdom as a possible replacement for human sacrifice. But I think that is missing the point.)

As for materialist better, we can say that the theory of general relativity is "better" than Newton's universal gravitation, as it is more consistent with known facts.

 

[Zero]

As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existence are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period.

 

[TENYEARS]

This conversation must have been how the jews felt during their stay in the mud pits for a few hundred years. Time to make the mud bricks.

Zero, glad to see you have now become religous because spiritual is not not physical. Had to reogranize a large amount of soil which was buried beneath concrete. I busted it up and buried the four tons of concrete in a hole I had dug(200$ to be dumped at the dump). In replacing the soil that now had new purpose I thought about how to keep the finest soil at the top. I got some old fence and screen with different size holes and starting sifting. The largest rocks went down first. Then the smaller and so on. When it came to the finner soil it went through the smallest screen I had.

The question here would be simple. Is it that the there was nothing else because nothing stayed upon the finest screen which I had or is it that the screen by it's nature had holes to large to contain that which was smaller.

When you hit smallest only then may you question gravity or anything else. I will not say spiritual because there is no separation between anything.

You have all the clues you need here. I would not pass on the salad this time.

 

[FZ+]

May I point out how utterly irrelevant that previous post was?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existence are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period.

What about motives, or intent? Could this be construed as a physical cause? It's certainly not physical is it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
May I point out how utterly irrelevant that previous post was?

I'm sure everyone who read it agrees...Jews and mud pits?!? Concrete?

Something I find interesting is that some non-materialists seem driven to spout intellectual-sounding but empty phrases, as though by being obscure, we won't see that they don't have a solid leg to stand on.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about motives, or intent? Could this be construed as a physical cause? It's certainly not physical is it?

Human motives or intent would come from the mental processes of a perfectly physical human brain.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Human motives or intent would come from the mental processes of a perfectly physical human brain.

And yet we're willing to call these things abstract of subjective now aren't we? Which really has nothing to do with "objective materialism" now does it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet we're willing to call these things abstract of subjective now aren't we? Which really has nothing to do with "objective materialism" now does it?

Whetever are you talking about? Even subjective things, like thoughts and feelings, come from a material source(the brain).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Whetever are you talking about? Even subjective things, like thoughts and feelings, come from a material source(the brain).

What about the radio waves we receive over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the radio waves we receive over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

Radio waves are a readily explained physical phenomena.

Do we live in a matrix? A Toyota hatchback wouldn't hold all of us, I don't think...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Radio waves are a readily explained physical phenomena.

Even so, the radio is only a receptacle. In which case how do we know that our mind is not just a receptacle either? Or, say part of a "grand stage," where everything is broadcast live? ... and we're just part of the "live" entertainment.

Do we live in a matrix? A Toyota hatchback wouldn't hold all of us, I don't think...

Was this from "The Matrix Reloaded?" Haven't seen that one yet.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existence are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period.

Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist.

Yeah, maybe we could try skipping rope with it!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the radio waves we receive over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

Actually you are right. Our thinking originates from our left toe (except in the rear cases, in which actually a radio source near pluto sends the thought signals to the right toe) , and our head... well that is just a cooling device, so that our blood cools down.

I hope this clears your problem.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually you are right. Our thinking originates from our left toe (except in the rear cases, in which actually a radio source near pluto sends the thought signals to the right toe) , and our head... well that is just a cooling device, so that our blood cools down.

I hope this clears your problem.

Actually compared to the complexity of the brain a radio is pretty crude. And yet it clearly illustrates the fact that it's possible to send and receive signals from a remote source. In which case it would seem the brain is far more capable of pulling something off like the "matrix scenario."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually compared to the complexity of the brain a radio is pretty crude. And yet it clearly illustrates the fact that it's possible to send and receive signals from a remote source. In which case it would seem the brain is far more capable of pulling something off like the "matrix scenario."

And yet the very evidence of the reality that exists behind "reality" is exhibited by our dreams.

From the thread, The Mystery Within ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually it's this kind of "lucid dreaming" state that I believe would account for what people term "alien abduction," for which reason I think the idea of abduction is very unlikely.

Now as for a "spiritual encounter," that would be another story. For if in indeed our dreams were like a portal to another dimension, then it would be much easier to explain the existence of God, than that of extraterrestrial existence.

From the thread, Heaven? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I see no reason for Heaven to have dimensions, it would basically be another place. Heaven perhaps is another dimension, but not multidimensional.

Although, I think the idea of Heaven and the possibility of it being another dimensions is a weak attempt by people to tie science into religion.

If Heaven truly exists, there is no physical evidence of it, so one would only assume its a state of un/consciousness.

Let me ask you this? Do you dream in three dimensions? Or, is that just illusory? Don't our dreams also reflect our state of mind and being?

If we can do it in our dreams, which is merely an introduction to the spiritual world, then why not even more so in heaven?

 

[heusdens]

Hee Iacchus32

Just a reminder, you started talking to yourself again.

Just in case you lost sight of reality.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Hee Iacchus32

Just a reminder, you started talking to yourself again.

Just in case you lost sight of reality.

Oh, I get it!

You don't think it expounds on what I said previous to that?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist.

They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense. Anyhoo, don't try to make one of those uncalled for leaps from 'concept X 'exists', and isn't physical, therefore any nonsense I want to believe MUST exist too!'

 

[Zero]

See, grrrrrr...


Been reading threads by certain folks, which seek to show flaw3s in science based on...well, based on absolutely nothing but gut feelings and the results of meditation. That's absolutely teh WORST way to go about things!

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Zero
See, grrrrrr...


Been reading threads by certain folks, which seek to show flaws in science based on...well, based on absolutely nothing but gut feelings and the results of meditation. That's absolutely teh WORST way to go about things!

So what makes science superior to gut feelings or the results of meditation?

Obviously science can never be flawed when the criteria for flawlessness is set by scientists themselves. But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense. Anyhoo, don't try to make one of those uncalled for leaps from 'concept X 'exists', and isn't physical, therefore any nonsense I want to believe MUST exist too!'

I will pay you money if you can find where I ever argued for any nonsense simply because I wanted to believe it. This consistent lack of respect you have for anyone that disagrees with you is a bit tiring and I'm positive not in line with the intended spirit of this site.

I was simply responding to this ill conceived quote...


"Any claims for a non-physical existence are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period."

This quote is NOT consistent with this one ...

"They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense."

I ask again "Do mental constructs not exists?" They're not real in a "material" sense you say? So in what sense are they real? I'm a bit confused. It is either real or it is not.

 

[FZ+]

But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?

Easy. There are no such thing as independent, unbiased sources in such matters.

Suppose someone looks at meditation. It is not possible to look at it without defining a position from which you can study - you can either study it as a material phenomenon, in which case your a biased materialist, or you can focus on the experience, in which case you are a biased spiritualist. The only way to be independent is not to look. Kinda like an example of QM...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by amadeus
So what makes science superior to gut feelings or the results of meditation?

Obviously science can never be flawed when the criteria for flawlessness is set by scientists themselves. But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?

Science isn't perfect, no one here has made that claim(at least not since Alexander was around!), but the difference is, one sort of thinking can be independently confirmed, while the others cannot.

I could have a gut feeling that my car has been stolen, but don't you think I should go look and see for sure before I call the cops?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I will pay you money if you can find where I ever argued for any nonsense simply because I wanted to believe it. This consistent lack of respect you have for anyone that disagrees with you is a bit tiring and I'm positive not in line with the intended spirit of this site.

I was simply responding to this ill conceived quote...


"Any claims for a non-physical existence are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period."

This quote is NOT consistent with this one ...

"They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense."

I ask again "Do mental constructs not exists?" They're not real in a "material" sense you say? So in what sense are they real? I'm a bit confused. It is either real or it is not.

I wasn't referring to you, so you can take off your indignant armor now...and any lack of respect I have is for obviously ill-concieved responses to posts...for instance, if I had replied to your post with 'My dog is blue, see the tears roll down the mountain', I would expect you would call that a nonsense post, right?

As far as the rest of your post(now that you are done with the obligatory Zero-bashing...do you have a crush on me?), a physical law is not a thing that has existence, it is a mental construct that exlains observed facts. It is different sort of 'existance' than what this thread is addressing.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I wasn't referring to you, so you can take off your indignant armor now...

Oh Sorry. I assumed it was geared toward me since it was my quote that it appeared to be responding to. If my quote is sitting there I assume your response is aimed to it directly.

and any lack of respect I have is for obviously ill-concieved responses to posts...for instance, if I had replied to your post with 'My dog is blue, see the tears roll down the mountain', I would expect you would call that a nonsense post, right?

Right. Pure nonsense. But I thought you were responding to my post. I wasn't interested in whatever garbage someone else may be posting.

As far as the rest of your post(now that you are done with the obligatory Zero-bashing...do you have a crush on me?), a physical law is not a thing that has existence, it is a mental construct that exlains observed facts. It is different sort of 'existance' than what this thread is addressing.

Ok well then I would recommend that everyone else involved in the thread express their opinion on that. To me this is just more evidence that many of the discussions going on here are the result of semantic problems. I have already expressed earlier in the thread that a definition that begs the question by simply building the conclusion into itself is not useful. I have also suggested that this isn't the same definition that others are using.

First you said that nothing exist unless it is physical. I said the laws of physics, math, nature, whatever, is real but is not physical. Then you said that these things are not real in a material sense. So you're 2 statements put together equal = "Nothing exists in a material sense unless it is physical". Duh!

So again, with these definitions you are simply assuming the conclusion and end up making these obviously true but useless statements.

 

[Iacchus32]

By the way Zero, the "idea" of God which, is merely a thought, has to come from somewhere. And if as you say, thoughts and feelings are only physical, then how would you account for a "Spiritual God," if in fact He exists?

So in that case there has to be something "metaphysical" about consciousness, or not? ... Whereas similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

And yet what is it about consciousness that doesn't "underscore" our very existence?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

For christs sake... Go back 100 years and look at all the things 'Science Still can't explain...' Then go back 200 years, then go back 300 years... That argument will always be available on some level, because there will always be something that Humans can't explain at any given time. Our pursuit of knowledge is constantly pushing back the boundary, not revealing everything in one big foul swoop.

So what if we can't explain consciousness (still) what indication have you got that it is inexplainable?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So again, with these definitions you are simply assuming the conclusion and end up making these obviously true but useless statements.

It does seem to be a semantic problem. Physical laws aren't things...they are descriptions of the behaviors of things. I don't see how a law has anything that would be considered 'existance', if you see what I mean?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way Zero, the "idea" of God which, is merely a thought, has to come from somewhere. And if as you say, thoughts and feelings are only physical, then how would you account for a "Spiritual God," if in fact He exists?

So in that case there has to be something "metaphysical" about consciousness, or not? ... Whereas similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

And yet what is it about consciousness that doesn't "underscore" our very existence?

None of this makes any sense...