Why the bias against materialism?

[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...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
None of this makes any sense...

Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.

Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic.

The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!

So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Another God]

It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

And if he does it, it proves you can have a brain and not be conscious!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what I'm saying here as evidence if you like, but it is evidence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Of course not, because experience is a conscious phenomenon. Der.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

But where does your consciousnes come from?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments.

The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can even construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled!

Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you.

The thing here, is that you are taking things from 'My perspective' and then proclaiming that 'My perspective' is all that matters. (ie: Without my consciousness, i can't experience anything, therefore nothing else matter)

The problem with that stance though, is that you are ignoring everything else outside of your experience, including all of the other billions of perspectives outside your own.

The only way to actually acknowledge the Conscious experience of other people, is to acknowledge the objective nature of reality, and the manifestation of the mind as a consequence of the objective brain.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything.

Existing isn't evidence for anything except existence. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you.

Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled!

You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Existing isn't evidence for anything except existence. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"

No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!

I am the judge of my own situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.

Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is on;y proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is on;y proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?

Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
But where does your consciousnes come from?

Am afraid only our consciousness will tell. You can consider that evidence too if you like.

The source of our "knowing" is consciousness, not some test tube in a laboratory.

 

[Zero]

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR NONSENSE!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
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?

Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"

I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"

Or, at the very least it "testifies" to the intelligence behind the design.

By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32


By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.

What? You haven't actually reported seeing anything, except things you imagined. I've read lots of your posts, and most of the time you imagine stuff, then come to unfounded conclusions based on your imaginings.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.

But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.

Information doesn't have a separate existence from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Information doesn't have a separate existence from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...

So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

You know, it makes perfect sense in my head, and I am just not explaining it right...let me think some more on it, ok? Your criticism would be spot-on, if I meant what you think I mean, which I don't.

 

[Another God]

In the interest of coherency, I have decided to write my reply a second time, and make it a little more succinct

Originally posted by Fliption
Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing. You cannot deny that we are subjective...but how does subjectivity come about? I mean, we have the objective brain things (collection of cells transmitting electro-chemical signals etc) and from those things, somehow, our subjective point of view arises.

I think our subjectivity can be simply explained (although we don't know how to) as a direct consequence of the physical make up of our brain.

Now, the Software not being a physical thing: I think the substratum of the software is the only actual existence of the information. It exists as a CD, and nothing else. Our perception of 'Information' as if it was something else, is just a consequence of our subjectivity: just as we experience lightning, although lightning is nothing more than static electricity. To look at paint and see paint, but then get magic atom glasses and look at the atoms that make up the paint, and see atoms, is to miss the point that the atoms actually are the paint.

For instance, the red example: Where we experience red, there is actually only light of a particular wavelength. Just because we experience Red, does not mean that 'Light carries the information for Red', but rather that something in the subjectivity creating factory in our brains is triggered by light hitting it, which makes us experience red. Cause and effect. 'Information' above and beyond the existence of the light wave is not required. Just as information above and beyond the existence of the particle (which has mass be definition) is not required, and just as the structure of the 'bits' on the CD require no extra information above and beyond the physical structure of those bits. Although the consequence of the structure ends up being quite meaningful to our subjectivity, that is simply a causal relationship that flows through the CD, to the CD player, into the Processor, through the RAM, into the monitor/speakers etc, into our eyes ears etc, into our subjectivity factory in the brain.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.

Hope I could help...?