Why the bias against materialism?

[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 ...

 

[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?