Why the bias against materialism?

[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.