Materialism is the best explanation for reality

[Willamena]

When you make a claim like that perhaps you should provide some rationale or at least argue with the one I gave based on Google definitions. a general theory is just A system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the one explained

It is a philosophical theory that consist of a system of ideas including those from logic, math biology, matter, physics in order to explain the phenomena in the universe that science hasnt experimentally verified or explained

You are again treating it as a theory, for which we should present alternatives. But allowing that you consider it to be a theory, then quantum mechanics would be the obvious alternative--a theory that explains matter.

 

[serp777]

In the sciences, theories serve as frameworks for the development and empirical testing of hypotheses. Materialism is a fundamental assumption about the nature of reality itself. It is a much a theory as "religion", "realism", "ontology", etc. It is completely untestable, because any test that might serve as confirmation must assume materialism to be true.

In what way is it untestable? Prove that consciousness requires the immaterial and the supernatural. Show that a theory of everything is impossible. Alternatively if all observed phenomena iin the universe can be shown to be a result of material and the laws of physics, and a theory of everything is discovered, then materialism is shown to be true. But there are many counter examples you could provide to show materialism is false. Any ways a theory other people propose against materialism is God for example.

Also I said it was a philosophical theory not a scientific theory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

first I'm still waiting for any alternative theory you could propose that would be superior.

Materialism isn't a theory.

Being allegedly popular

I'm not using the lexeme "popular" in the colloquial sense, but as a categorization. Popular literature is that which is non-technical (i.e., not intended for our colleagues). For example, literature in modern (quantum & relativistic quantum) physics assumes that one is familiar with vector spaces, functionals, etc., but not necessarily measure theory (at least not to the extent that mathematicians or those who deal with rigorous probability theory are). Technical literature in biblical studies or classics generally assumes knowledge not only of Latin and Ancient Greek but German and French or Italian.

your position is completely irrational.

You don't know my position.

In addition, quoting assertions from scientists, many of which even reflected significant uncertainty in their claims, certainly does not indicate the superiority of your evidence regardless.

All scientists rely on citations from other scientists. It's the foundation of all academic literature, the sciences included. Any technical paper, monograph, etc., will rely on a large number of quotations or simply citations from the literature.

I mean it requires significant proof to say something is impossible.

Proof is for mathematics. We don't deal with proofs in science except in terms of mathematical proofs.

A theory is just postulating a set of ideas based on some axioms

That's a theorem. Materialism is an axiom (or a set of axioms).

Next, let me address this no particles assertion. the standard model in case youre unaware, covers elementary particles including the newly discovered higgs boson.

The Higgs was "discovered" in 2012, and the physics literature still reflects the fact that we don't actually know what we found because we lack both the language and the knowledge to connect "physics" with the "physical" (see the particle physics group's latest publications, the relevant APS papers, and the simplest source I know of: my blog: The God Particle Discovered? Maybe Not).

You can look up the standard model and elementary particles if you dont accept this.

You can't. Because apart from the various different solutions that result in different elementary particles, there's the ontological issues. There's a fairly non-technical volume Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory you might check out.

They produce concrete results

Conflicting results that at best are uninterpretable from a materialist perspective.

responses between neural structures in the brain as individuals interact

This is simply to say that the brain is a materialist cause of phenomena from the social sciences because it is assumed they are. It explains nothing and assumes everything relevant. Even grandmother neurons were vastly superior to such assertions.

I'm also waiting for you to show that simulations of the brain

None exist (currently).

Also are you a professor or researcher or something?

I was a researcher and teacher at Harvard until my overly ambitious doctoral dissertation (demonstrating the inadequacy of any and all possible quantum theories of consciousness) required a change in graduate programs (basically, when you spend more time with mathematicians and physicists than those in your own lab, let alone your own department, you end up losing most of the possible support from your would-be "doctoral defense" committee, who don't appreciate your not producing or helping to produce research in the field and can't evaluate your work because they lack the requisite knowledge; so you go to MIT). However, my background is irrelevant. It's the literature that matters (actually, it's the truth that does but as access to it is mediated through things like scientific knowledge and familiarity with work in fields from philosophy to physics the literature is as good as we often get).

 

[serp777]

You are again treating it as a theory, for which we should present alternatives. But allowing that you consider it to be a theory, then quantum mechanics would be the obvious alternative--a theory that explains matter.

I treat it as a theory because I just cited the definition. and qm is not an alternative. It doesn't explain the origin of life, consciousness, etc. Materialism says there is a material explanation for those things. It says that ba supernatural theory on topqpf an already possible material theory is superfluous

 

[atanu]

I don't know what may lie behind consciousness, but then, on the other hand, there is nothing that lies behind consciousness that I can know.

This is the only point that matters. He he. Yes 'matters'.

 

[Shad]

I treat it as a theory because I just cited the definition. and qm is not an alternative. It doesn't explain the origin of life, consciousness, etc. Materialism says there is a material explanation for those things. It says that ba supernatural theory on topqpf an already possible material theory is superfluous

This is why it is an axiom. One uses induction to conclude the unknown or unknown cause has a or is a material cause due to the currently known having a material cause. Such a claim is not directly addressing the unknown or unknown subjects. This is the standard "All swans are white argument" in which specific observations are used to create a generalization for the whole. However such an argument must acknowledges that observations used as a basis are limited and can be refuted by future observations. The objections and criticism of this view point go back to antiquity

 

[atanu]

....... But most of the stuff we do is hardly our decision. You dont get to choose which thoughts you think, so at best you select between random thoughts our brains produce. And your thoughts determine your existence pretty much. and then consider the fact that most of what you do is involuntary. ......

Yeah that is the case for most of us. This need not be true for every one, however.

The point is that youre making claims assuming you know what cinsciousness is when no one does

Well. Well. Where did I say that I knew all about consciousness? Check the thread title. It is you who are asserting that 'materialism is the best explanation for reality ... and that includes our cognition, IMO. So, it is your claim and not mine.

I believe in the understanding of upanishads: "Who will know the Knower? Who will see the Seer?" Consciousness is of first person ontology. There is no other thing like that. All things are known/seen in third party mode alone. So, how will consciousness be known as a third party object?

But never mind. I am least interested in engaging in a futile argument.

 

[Yerda]

I treat it as a theory because I just cited the definition. and qm is not an alternative. It doesn't explain the origin of life, consciousness, etc. Materialism says there is a material explanation for those things. It says that ba supernatural theory on topqpf an already possible material theory is superfluous

But Serp, saying that there is an explanation isn't an explanation. Materialism doesn't explain the origin of life or consciousness either.

 

[Willamena]

I treat it as a theory because I just cited the definition. and qm is not an alternative. It doesn't explain the origin of life, consciousness, etc. Materialism says there is a material explanation for those things.

Fine, but it doesn't provide that explanation.

It says that ba supernatural theory on topqpf an already possible material theory is superfluous

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What arguments does creationism have? Life emerging spontaneously is a certain possibility so even if there's a God then life could still emerge by itself easily. We know there are self replicating molecules, and we know that there are something like 10 ^80 atoms over a 13.7 billion year time period so its plausible that life could emerge in a soup of chemical reactions randomly at some point. So no need for creationism when its already possible for life to emerge by itself. When you postulate a designer then who designed the designer becomes the relevant question. Creationism only adds uneccesary complexity without anymore explanatory power so by oczams razor the theory is impotent. And it's unfalsifiable so its scientifically impotent. Its a poop theory essentially and should be flushed down into the sewer

Ockham believed in God and the soul. He argued that the existence of the soul cannot be established either by empirical nor even established through philosphical evidence, but that the existence of it is categorically a matter of faith and revelation.

This is not adding unneccessary complexity it is in stead a validation of subjectivity. Without subjectivity we cannot say what is good, loving and beautiful, nor believe in the soul or God. In medieval works the soul is what chooses, it chooses the way the body turns out. So we can see in the works of Ockham the rules by which subjectivity works. Subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses.

We can see as fact a decision is made, then the rule of subjectivity says we can only reach a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turns out the way it does, by choosing the conclusion. We might choose it is love, or hate, either answer would be logically valid, just as well to say the painting is beautiful or ugly are both valid answers.

The belief in the soul is subjective, and accomodates subjectivity tremendously. The soul is who somebody is as being the owner of all decisions throughout their life, past, present and future. All emotions somebody has had, has and will have, which emotions makes their decisions turn out the way they do, all rolled into one whole. The belief in the soul, brings wholeness to emotional life from beginning to end. The soul still contains the emotions of when somebody was a child, and anticipates what one might feel when old. And with the belief in the soul, one can easily join souls in holy matrimony with another. Marriage is then clearly understood as a faithful union betwee man and woman, which means they choose as one.

To decide the soul does not exist, is equally valid belief as that the soul does exist. How one decides the issue may be complex or simple. There are different ways of deciding, and these differences matter very much.

You are just another materialist who rejects subjectivity.....

 

[serp777]

Fine, but it doesn't provide that explanation.

Ugh I've already provided you the materialism explanation for those things several times including it's there in the op. I don't feel like copying the explanation for the origin of life in terms of materialism again

 

[serp777]

Ockham believed in God and the soul. He argued that the existence of the soul cannot be established either by empirical nor even established through philosphical evidence, but that the existence of it is categorically a matter of faith and revelation.

This is not adding unneccessary complexity it is in stead a validation of subjectivity. Without subjectivity we cannot say what is good, loving and beautiful, nor believe in the soul or God. In medieval works the soul is what chooses, it chooses the way the body turns out. So we can see in the works of Ockham the rules by which subjectivity works. Subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses.

We can see as fact a decision is made, then the rule of subjectivity says we can only reach a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turns out the way it does, by choosing the conclusion. We might choose it is love, or hate, either answer would be logically valid, just as well to say the painting is beautiful or ugly are both valid answers.

The belief in the soul is subjective, and accomodates subjectivity tremendously. The soul is who somebody is as being the owner of all decisions throughout their life, past, present and future. All emotions somebody has had, has and will have, which emotions makes their decisions turn out the way they do, all rolled into one whole. The belief in the soul, brings wholeness to emotional life from beginning to end. The soul still contains the emotions of when somebody was a child, and anticipates what one might feel when old. And with the belief in the soul, one can easily join souls in holy matrimony with another. Marriage is then clearly understood as a faithful union betwee man and woman, which means they choose as one.

To decide the soul does not exist, is equally valid belief as that the soul does exist. How one decides the issue may be complex or simple. There are different ways of deciding, and these differences matter very much.

You are just another materialist who rejects subjectivity.....

It doesnt matter what ockham believed, isaac newton believed in astrology and alchemy but those were his worthless ideas noboday cares about.

Also there's no reason why subjectivity cant exist in materialism so your point is moot. it can be explained by synergestic neurons. If God exists he would have the ability to make subjecticity and consciousness work solely on a material basis.

You also didn't address any of the possibilities about consciousness that I brought up instead talking about the soul. I already explained several different ways consciousness to work like consciousness being a string or timeline of consciousnesses or that it could be an illusion since your thoughts are created without your choice. So if you want to assert the soul exists your welcome but realize you're only doing so because your religion demands certain faith beliefs. I accept all the possibilities so im on higher ground than you are. you have the burden of proof about the soul mumbo jumbo.

Youre just another religious person making assertions based on your beliefs rather than forcing your beliefs to conform to reality . Two can play thIs stupid pissing match you're starting. dont strawman my position and tell me that I reject subjectivity. obviously people have subjectivity but that isnt inconsistent with any thing I've said

 

[serp777]

But Serp, saying that there is an explanation isn't an explanation. Materialism doesn't explain the origin of life or consciousness either.

Go read the op lol clearly you havent even attempted to look around the thread. SInce this is the first time you asked ill summarize.

For the origin of life according to materialism, we know that there is a self replicating molecule. There is something like 10^80 atoms in the universe with 13.7 billion years of time. There are an unimaginable amount of instances where complex organic chemicals are forming, so it's possible and maybe even likely that the self reiplicating molecule can form spontaneously. No need for supernatural stuff even if God exists.

To address consciousness, the brain consists of processes which handle memory, movement, thinking, and produce solutions. So the frontal cortex uses these various inputs, and then based on various neural structures that contain expert systems , use a lifetime of experience to test various conditions based on the inputs to arrive at a conclusion of what to do, thus producing a thought . The expert system then develops to account for certain inputs and records the result. Another layer of expert systems then analyzes the other expert system database to make decisions in situations with multiple options or things which are similar but not indentical to previous situations. In the event of a new circumstance or situation there is another layer still which somehow use genetic programming in the form of instinct to make a decision in complete uncertainty. BUt these expert systems are litered throughout the brain and consciousnesses is the process by which all these systems interact. Now this is completely speculative but one way in which I can imagine consciousness being produced by material essentially in the form of neural circuitry

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It doesnt matter what ockham believed, isaac newton believed in astrology and alchemy but those were his worthless ideas noboday cares about.

Also there's no reason why subjectivity cant exist in materialism so your point is moot. it can be explained by synergestic neurons. If God exists he would have the ability to make subjecticity and consciousness work solely on a material basis.

You also didn't address any of the possibilities about consciousness that I brought up instead talking about the soul. I already explained several different ways consciousness to work like consciousness being a string or timeline of consciousnesses or that it could be an illusion since your thoughts are created without your choice. So if you want to assert the soul exists your welcome but realize you're only doing so because your religion demands certain faith beliefs. I accept all the possibilities so im on higher ground than you are. you have the burden of proof about the soul mumbo jumbo.

Youre just another religious person making assertions based on your beliefs rather than forcing your beliefs to conform to reality . Two can play thIs stupid pissing match you're starting. dont strawman my position and tell me that I reject subjectivity. obviously people have subjectivity but that isnt inconsistent with any thing I've said

Way to dismiss the argumentation of Ockham, that just shows you do not appreciate reasoning.

We already have subjectivity, we already make subjective statements. And in making these subjective statements we use rules, the rules of subjectivity. These rules are that an opinion is the result of choosing about what it is that chooses, as explained previously.

When you propose some laws of physics about the synergestic neurons as explaining subjectivity, different from the rules that we already use for subjectivity, then you have falsified the subjectivity that we already use. Meaning that apparently whenever we said "I love you" and "the painting is beautiful", it was wrong, because the rules by which we said those things are found to be false. Your proposed laws of physics must be the same as the rules for subjectivity we already use to avoid this problem.

Once again, this is simple, you are rejecting subjectivity altogether. Competing objectivity against subjectivity to the complete and utter destruction of it, just like all the other materialists, evolutionists, atheists and what have you.

It is bleedingly obvious to anybody who looks into it that subjectivity is inherently a creationist concept. Subjectivity requires a category of things the existence of which can only be established by choosing that they are real. Materialism can never accomodate subjectivity, because the existence of all material is a matter of fact issue, not opinion. We obviously require 2 fundamental categories, one for subjectivity, which is the creator, which chooses, and one for objectivity, which is the creation, which is chosen.

We can see that this works, we can see that the universe could have turned out otherwise than it did, that it is chosen. We can see the existence of the universe is a matter of fact issue. We can see that what emotions people have in their heart is matter of opinion, and that the opinion expressed on the issue, can change moment to moment. We can see that the conclusion "the painting is beautiful" is equally valid to the conclusion "the painting is ugly", it is obvious.

 

[JustWondering]

We can see that this works, we can see that the universe could have turned out otherwise than it did, that it is chosen.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How did you come to this conclusion?

I came to the conclusion just by looking at nature. We all have natural ways of identifying that there is freedom as distinghuished from when it is forced, and the attention for it is normally just focused on human beings, or animals, though I can't say exactly how this identifying works. I guess much of it is about seeing variation in results, seeing a human being go left, then seeing a human go right in a similar situation.

Besides that there is also science which establishes the fact. For example Quantum computer solves problem, without running | Archives | News Bureau | University of Illinois . That experiment establishes the scientific validity of the term "could have". It establishes the reality of options not chosen.

And there is of course creationism. The conceptual scheme of creationism is the same as that of common discourse. Which means to say if people deny it, then they deny most all they say is true in daily life. The fact that freedom is real is fundamental in most any common discourse, and most common discourse has a subjective element.

 

[Willamena]

Ugh I've already provided you the materialism explanation for those things several times including it's there in the op. I don't feel like copying the explanation for the origin of life in terms of materialism again

As I said, science and Materialism are different things. Where science accounts for something, that doesn't mean Materialism has.

 

[Shad]

Ugh I've already provided you the materialism explanation for those things several times including it's there in the op. I don't feel like copying the explanation for the origin of life in terms of materialism again

You are conflating empiricism as a model of science with a metaphysical view point of materialism. One is part of a methodology and model which works in science, the other is not. Materialism is the inductive based metaphysical view based on empiricism.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah that is the case for most of us. This need not be true for every one, however.

Yeah, folks assume what is not true for is not true for anyone else. "People don't get to choose what thoughts they think." This is true for a lot of folks. When you meditate you learn how not to listen.

If people can't choose their thoughts, it'd mean Buddhism is a big lie.

Materialism and determinism seem to go hand in hand? People can't separate themselves from their thoughts. They are their thoughts, they are their thinking and they are just robots responding to their programming. They can't conceive of existence being anything else.

In meditation you let go of your thoughts and exist without them. You can see thoughts are not necessary to your existence so no longer identify with them. If you are not your perceptions, including your perception of thoughts, you start to wonder exactly who you are.

I'm not my seeing, I'm not my hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting and I am not my thoughts, what am I? On the other hand, materialism assumes this is all that is. These can all be explained by materialism. However knowledge, my knowledge that I am not these things. Can materialism explain who I am without these things?

 

[Bunyip]

But Serp, saying that there is an explanation isn't an explanation. Materialism doesn't explain the origin of life or consciousness either.

Why would it need to?