serp777
Well-Known Member
The Kraken awakes...
And i just sent it to davy jones' footlocker
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Materialism is the best explanation for reality
- Thread starter serp777
- Start date
- Status
And i just sent it to davy jones' footlocker
serp777
Well-Known Member
You completely missed the point. The point was to annihilate your excessive assertion and the negative connotations that anything which isnt experimentally verified is make believe. The point wasnt that materialism predicted the higgs boson, just that you can use logic and science and math, which materialism fundamentally relies on, to show that something is very likely to be true, and often is true/verifiable. And the higgs boson wasn't make believe until it was discovered either. It existed before it was discovered of course so assuming something is make believe is false, which is why we say things are probably true or probably false.
This is extremely vague and ambiguous. I mean since you complained about explanatory power how does this have any explanatory power? or for that matter predictions or evidence?
serp777
Well-Known Member
So i mean ive explained the observer effect to you several times but you keep ignoring my explanation. The observer effect occurs without humans out in deep space billions of years ago as well. It has to do with the quantization of the wave function since it requires a photon that alters the measurement being attempted . It requires no camera, just an arbitrary source of light and a scenario where the wave function could collapse.
commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
You're an unreal hypocrite who refuses to do a simple google search in order to keep believing your nonsense and religious beliefs about science and measurements. Ive explained it you to you several times as well and you fail to argue against any of the points ive made. Instead of you bring up something completely different like entanglement and act as if that is evidence for you case. Please give it a rest and stop acting like you're superior when you're not. I mean your relentless faith in spite of the science is truly legendary. Ill literally cite from the wikipedia page since you seem unable to look for anything that conflicts with your assumptions. And then you act like you're better than us which is so fail its hard to believe.
From wikipedia--
"An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an "observer"—there is no need for a conscious "observer".[7]
Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Im sure you wont accept the definitions ive given you again and again because your faith is so strong. My position is based on science and the common understanding of the observer effect is as well as all the scientific documentation. P
serp777
Well-Known Member
They dont, materialism relies on them
And complaint, counterargument, does it really matter?
Last edited:
OK, I was only concerned up to this point with the general philosophical reasons why I don't think 'materialism' is the best explanation for reality.
But since you request, I will give you the reasons why I think the material realm is only the outermost layer of the universe and why materialism can do a good job when describing activity within the material realm but fails in presenting a full picture of existence. I began my interest in these things by studying a full gambit of things colloquially called paranormal. I came to the opinion through rational analysis that (beyond my reasonable doubt) that things do happen that should not happen under the theories of a materialist universe. I searched for what this 'more' could be and came across those who explain a greater vision of the universe in which these 'paranormal' things were just part and parcel of this expanded worldview. I learned these teachings have their source in one of the world's greatest wisdom traditions (eastern, Indian) and studied the works of many of the great minds of this tradition. I believe this tradition has the greatest breadth of wisdom and explanatory power beyond any other of mankind's wisdom traditions (including western materialism).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
LOL Nope. Materialism does not equate to determinism. Humans being made from physical material, does not equate to determinism.
Yes, I know you keep saying that - but you are mistaken. Intent has absolutely nothing to do with the observer effect, just as materialism does not at all equate to determinism.
They don't. They are not conscious agencies. This is why people keep suggesting that you read up on this stuff before relying on what you clearly do not understand to mm make an argument.
What absolute certitude? I have no such certainty.
serp777
Well-Known Member
SO what was the actual rationale? I mean so far you're only implying that there are some allegedly great minds in the eastern tradition, but there are also great hindu, and and materialists, and christians who would reject their assertions. Perhaps you could show your logic or wisdom or explanatory power or evidence instead of claiming that there is. I want specifics please, not more assertions. I gave several examples of materialist arguments so.it's only fair you show yours
Look at it like a murder court case. A jury looks at all evidence and argumentation from both sides and uses their best judgment to determine what is most reasonable to conclude. My conclusion is that the eastern (Hindu) worldview is the most reasonable worldview beyond reasonable doubt.
The most convincing evidence against materialism comes from my study of various sub-fields of paranormal phenomena. I look at the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence in forming my verdict. Fields like NDEs, verifiable childhood reincarnation memories, spirit communications, mediums, parapsychology, etc. and the lives. miracles and insights associated with certain spiritual masters I have studied dovetail to the worldview I believe in.
As my argument is based on the entire quantity, quality and consistency a discussion of specifics would take hundreds of hours (and I've spent that over the decades). For those who wish to take the time to study all these phenomena you can form your own verdict. Or one can choose to not look into it and continue on as they are.
Edit: And I should add that I have also spent many hours studying materialist attempts to explain these phenomena too and I considered what they have to say in my judgment.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No doubt. If more people see the connection by which conceptual thought is materially dependent on a physical structure, the rest clearly falls into place.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Unfortunately none of those things represents any evidence against materialism whatsoever. You need evidence for spiritualism, and I'm afraid I can not see how that would even be possible. To challenge materialism you would need to establish and evidence an explanation for any of those phenomena that rules out materialism - which would be an astonishing feat.
The problem is George that all you have there is an argument from ignorance - which is not a rational approach. That materialism can not yet explain something does not in any way whatsoever infer that there is something there that would contradict or challenge it.
"Materialism can not explain 'X', and therefore must be false and spiritualism true" is not in fact a rational argument. It is fallacious.
Last edited:
It's not from ignorance. It's from another wisdom tradition (Indian/Vedic).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, not a judgement upon a wisdom tradition George.
Your rationale - "materialism can not yet explain 'x', therefore spiritualism" is an argument from ignorance - a logical fallacy. That materialism does not explain all known phenomena does not in fact challenge materialism's utility.
serp777
Well-Known Member
I ask you again, what tells you that the hindu worldview is the most reasomable compared to anything else?
Lets talk about your nde example though; there are machines that use magnetic fields and chemicals which can produce nde experiences. The machine is called the god helmet by the way and the result can be verfied by an eeg which is then correlated with nde reports. So clearly the ndes, since they can be produced by physical forces and an improved understanding of the brain, it follows that ndes are simply an electrochemical result in brain. It requires nothing beyond a material explanation to work.
Furthermore you underestimate exaggeration and hallucination and lies to get attention. Think about how irrational and senseless reincarnation memories are. There would have to be a medium to first record memories and brain wave patterns using a neurological tramsfer device that operates magically, then store those memories for some random duration, and then randomly interface to a babies brain and then adapt the memories to work in a brain with an entirely different brain structure without causing brain damage. You need all these things to work before reincarnation memories can occur, and that still wouldnt explain why the heck that would happen, what motive would there be for it. The point is that since reincarnation memories have to be implanted in a physical brain it requires a physical explanation to work properly in the scope of the brain. it needs a material explanation to work so it should be verifiable with an mri. Postulating magic to solve these problems is just a cop out too because you're postulating huge complexity when lying or trying to get attention is a perfectly valid alternative, or a child overheard some conversation. And you need an explanation for why this hasnt been able to be verfied scientifically. I can use the same justification to defeat all your other points which you have justified by saying that you studied it a lot. Well why didnt you make a video recording or do a study and win the nobel prize? Probably because its all second hand anecdotes with the same reliablity as those Muslims who get visions from allah to blow up a building.
So in conclusion you can't juSt say youve studied stuff so therefore you're a reliable authority when many people who study aliens or the quran can make the same magntiude claims essentially. You also still need a physical explanation for where the magical realm interfaces with the physical world and effects it. The interface should be scientifically observable and if it somehow is then it just becomes new physics which is then within the scope of materialism. So even if you were to some how prove completely new physics you still wouldnt have defeated materialism. And at the minimum at least a bunch of your assertions and fields of studies are a result of people looking for attention or hallucinations or fraud or the misperception of a normal, neural phenomen.
You are trying to fit reincarnation into a materialist worldview and you're right it doesn't make sense then. Worldview differences I subscribe to are: non-local memory, consciousness is not physical but incarnates the physical, and multiple layers of subtle bodies (including a reincarnating soul) between consciousness and the physical body. Consciousness descends from higher realms to lower realms.
I'm not sure you have had much exposure to eastern religion or to the quality of detail in the strongest verifiable childhood reincarnation cases.
serp777
Well-Known Member
The point was that you have to fit it in the physical , material world, you have no choice. If you damage the hippocampus or other parts of the brain related to memory, then people will get permanent amensia. So even in your worldview there has to be a material component for memory. Science has proven that memories have to exist in the brain for you to remember. This is basic neurology and proven in every single experiment involving memory. You cannot deny that brain material is essential for memory to work so there has to be some material interface. You simply cannot avoid it. For instance those with a damaged hippocampus cant remember anything let alone reincarnation memories. And if you could then you should literally go out and get a nobel prize
serp777
Well-Known Member
And also that evidence of reincarnation memory has been rejected for a variety of reasons showing that it is false and fake every time. Double blind studies hahe been done disproving the entire mythology
I can see these subjects are not your strength. I will admit at least when I am outside my area of expertise on many other subjects. Continue on....
serp777
Well-Known Member
I'm just telling you what the studies have said. My strengths and weaknesses have nothing to do with an outside study lol. I know it conflicts with your beliefs but surely you're not saying that you can't be wrong? I can at least admit that I can be wrong but it seems like you're so convinced that no science or logic could convince you otherwise. I mean consider my logic in the post above you didnt address where I show that reincarnation memories demand at least some physical explanation. But I see now that nothing could convince you otherwise. And before you predictably say that I couldnt be convinced all you have to do is show meba study of reincarnation memories showing a positive correlation better than random guessing
They don't. Many theories in the social sciences, for example, aren't concerned with "material" phenomena and thus can be (and indeed must be) formulated independently of any assumptions about whether they are reducible to material explanations (i.e., whether or not economic booms or recessions can in principle be explained in terms of the dynamics of sub-atomic constituents). In fact, one of the most successful theories in physics (statistical mechanics) is explicitly immaterialistic in that it deals with systems that are mathematical idealizations of physical systems. Quantum mechanics, at least canonically, is even worse: a quantum system is a purely mathematical entity and quantum mechanics irreducibly statistical (the "systems" it describes aren't real but are vectors in an infinite-dimensional complex space that are "observed" by mathematical functions called Hermitian operators in order to relate particular experimental designs to measurements).
Of course, materialism is mostly a philosophical view, and we don't generally even use the term or consider the issues, as (unfortunately) too many of us have neither familiarity with nor training in philosophy or metaphysics, leaving such issues mostly to those with a scientific background but who are philosophers of science (or worse, philosophers without scientific backgrounds). For example:
"materialism is waning in a number of significant respects—one of which is the ever-growing number of major philosophers who reject materialism or at least have strong sympathies with anti-materialist views. It is of course commonly thought that over the course of the last sixty or so years materialism achieved hegemony in academic philosophy, and this is no doubt right by certain measures—for example, in absolute number of self-identified materialist philosophers of mind or in absolute number of books and journal articles defending materialism. It is therefore surprising that an examination of the major philosophers active in this period reveals that a majority, or something approaching a majority, either rejected materialism or had serious and specific doubts about its ultimate viability. The following is just a partial sampling of these philosophers, more or less in order of birth.
Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, Nelson Goodman, Paul Grice, Stuart Hampshire, Roderick Chisholm, Benson Mates, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, John Searle, Jerrold Katz, Alvin Plantinga, Charles Parsons, Jaegwon Kim, George Myro, Thomas Nagel, Robert Adams, Hugh Mellor, Saul Kripke, Eli Hirsch, Ernest Sosa, Stephen Schiffer, Bas van Fraassen, John McDowell, Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, Crispin Wright, Laurence BonJour, Michael Jubien, Nancy Cartwright, Bob Hale, Kit Fine, Tyler Burge, Terence Horgan, Colin McGinn, Robert Brandom, Nathan Salmon, Joseph Levine, Timothy Williamson, Mark Johnston, Paul Boghossian, Stephen Yablo, Joseph Almog, Keith DeRose, Tim Crane, John Hawthorne, Richard Heck, David Chalmers."
from the editors' introduction to Coons, R. C., & Bealer, G. (Eds.) (2010). The Waning of Materialism. Oxford University Press.
True. For example, about the closest we can get in the sciences to “proof” is found in Bell’s inequality, which “proves” that if we find particular correlations between space-like separated measurements of systems than the only explanation is nonlocality. This, of course, isn’t true: one can abandon realism instead, but as that would be an abandonment of an assumption to all scientific theories very few opt for this (none that I know of are physicists). The problem is that nonlocality entails some "cause" behind the dynamics of systems that isn't "materialistic". Newtonian gravitation was nonlocal, but at least it was "something" (i.e., it was an effect which was so constant in its influence on mechanics that all motion could be explained in terms of this force as a singular effect). Nonlocality isn't a force, but a surprising and seemingly paradoxical feature of the universe that has no singular generalization the way Newtonian gravitation did. It can't be used to explain the dynamics of systems (Bell's inequality, for example, was derived from the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and first violated some 20 years later by Aspect et al.). It isn't even clear how to approach describing it (nonlocality is sometimes considered to be superluminal effects/processes, instead of effects/processes that occur in "no-time"). But there is no "material" explanation for it, and indeed it violates classical causation.
Classical physics, including the "law of gravity", is wrong. It is true that our incomplete knowledge of physics hasn't provided us with an adequate replacement, as gravitation per se doesn't exist in general relativity but we have haven't been able to incorporate GR into quantum physics. However, regardless of this lack of an adequate replacement, the "law of gravity" is still just plain wrong. It is not consistent with any theory of modern physics, as it predicts that every electron in the universe would plummet into the nuclei each orbits in an instant. Thus every second atoms continue to exist provide as many counter-examples to the "law of gravity" as there are atoms in the universe.
...that I linked to a free version of a peer-reviewed paper. Would you like more? A pure assertion is making so inane and ill-informed statement about complex systems reducing to algorithms as you did (which contradicts the foundations of relational biology) without evidence (and then thinking that producing a bunch of popular science garbage or other popular, non-technical literature is somehow indicative of anything other than an ability to use internet search engines). Even those scientists in relevant fields who believe that life and evolutionary processes can be reduced to computable models (algorithms are by definition computable) are well-aware that nothing like this is remotely closer to being shown.
No, they haven't. Not in the technical sense, as we remain unable to create complete models of single cells (which, as Robert Rosen and followers argued, is impossible; they are [M,R]-systems and closed to efficient causation).
No, they aren't. Computational neuroscience (part of what I do) involves models of neurons and neuronal networks, and in fact entire software environments like NEURON exist solely for creating neural models and whole fields in HCI involve the creation of Neuromorphic systems, BCIs, etc. But all these are MODELS or involve interfaces that are neither models, nor simulations, and tell us relatively little about the brain.
“We have demonstrated, for the first time to our knowledge, that computations performed and shaped by the dynamics of charges are radically different than computations in digital computers.”
Aur, D., & Jog, M. S. (2010). Neuroelectrodynamics: Understanding the Brain Language (Biomedical and Health Research Vol. 74). IOS Press.
Louie, A. H. (2005). Any material realization of the (M, R)-systems must have noncomputable models. Journal of integrative neuroscience, 4(04), 423-436.
"while leading computationalists have shown considerable ingenuity in elaborating and defending the conception of minds as computers, they have not always been attentive to the study of thought processes themselves. Their underlying attitude has been that no theoretical alternative is possible...The essays collected here are intended to demonstrate that this attitude is no longer justified."
Fetzer, J. H. (2001). Computers and cognition: Why minds are not machines (Studies in Cognitive Systems Vol. 25). Springer.
“The brain is not a computer, nor is the world an unambiguous piece of tape defining an effective procedure and constituting “symbolic information.” Such a selectional brain system is endlessly more responsive and plastic than a coded system.”
Edelman, G. M. (1999). Building a Picture of the Brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 882(1), 68-89.
“no formal system is able to generate anything even remotely mind-like. The asymmetry between the brain and the computer is complete, all comparisons are flawed, and the idea of a computer-generated consciousness is nonsense.”
Torey, Z. (2009). The crucible of consciousness: An integrated theory of mind and brain. Cambridge: MIT press.
“To understand why neurons and computers are fundamentally different, we must bear in mind that modern computers are algorithmic, whereas the brain and neurons are not.”
Tse, P. (2013). The neural basis of free will: Criterial causation. Mit Press.
“The free will theorem supports a powerful challenge to the scientific credentials of determinism, by showing, on certain well-supported assumptions, that two cornerstones of contemporary science, namely (1) acceptance of the scientific method as a reliable way of finding out about the world, and (2) relativity theory’s exclusion of faster-than-light transmission of information, taken together, conflict with determinism in both its versions. Belief in determinism may thus come to be seen as notably unscientific.”
Hodgson, D. (2012). Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (Philosophy of Mind). Oxford University Press.
“The view that the brain does not compute Turing-computable-functions is still a form of wide mechanism in Copeland’s sense, but it is more encompassing than Copeland’s, because it includes both Copeland’s hypercomputationalism and the view that mental capacities are not explained by neural computations but by neural processes that are not computational. Perhaps brains are simply not computing mechanisms but some other kinds of mechanisms. This view fits well with contemporary theoretical neuroscience, where much of the most rigorous and sophisticated work assigns no explanatory role to computation”
Piccinini, G. (2007). Computationalism, the Church–Turing thesis, and the Church–Turing fallacy. Synthese, 154(1), 97-120.
“Referring to the ‘widespread belief ... in many scientific circles ... that the brain is a computer,’ neurobiologist Gerald Edelman (2006) insists that ‘this belief is mistaken,’ for a number of reasons, principal among which are that ‘the brain does not operate by logical rules’ (p. 21). Jerome Bruner (1996), a founder of cognitive science itself, yet, coincidentally, a key figure in the emergence of narrative psychology, challenges the ability of ‘informationprocessing’ to account for ‘the messy, ambiguous, and context-sensitive processes of meaning-making’ (p. 5). Psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), author of the popular book Emotional Intelligence, asserts that cognitive scientists have been so ‘seduced by the computer as the operative model of mind’ (pp. 40f.) that they have forgotten that, ‘in reality, the brain’s wetware is awash in a messy, pulsating puddle of neurochemicals’ (p. 40f.) which is ‘nothing like the sanitized, orderly silicon that has spawned the guiding metaphor for mind’ (pp. 40–41).”
Randall, W. L. (2007). From Computer to Compost: Rethinking Our Metaphors for Memory. Theory & psychology, 17(5), 611-633.
“Semantic ambiguity exists in real-world processes of life and mind...Thus, it is feasible to rationally investigate a real-world semantic process, such as the interaction between synaptic communication and NDN, by placing the process into a modeling relation with an impredicative model, such as a hyperset process, and learn novel (albeit qualitative rather than quantitative) things about the real-world process by asking questions about the model.
What is not feasible is serious investigation of such processes by algorithmic computation. Algorithms disallow internal semantics, and specifically prohibit ambiguity. In other words, in a fundamental manner, the entailment structures of algorithms differ from the entailment structures of processes of life and mind. Thus, algorithmic descriptions of such processes are superficial, capturing the incidental syntax but not the essential semantics...
No computer program, no matter how cleverly designed, has an entailment structure like a mind, or even a prion.”
Kercel, S. W. (2003, June). Softer than soft computing. In Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, 2003. SMCia/03. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 27-32). IEEE.
“Today’s programs—at best—solve specific problems. Where humans have broad and flexible capabilities, computers do not.
Perhaps we’ve been going about it in the wrong way. For 50 years, computer scientists have been trying to make computers intelligent while mostly ignoring the one thing that is intelligent: the human brain. Even so-called neural network programming techniques take as their starting point a highly simplistic view of how the brain operates.”
Hawkins, J. (2007). Why Can't a Computer be more Like a Brain?. Spectrum, IEEE, 44(4), 21-26.
“there is no evidence for a computer program consisting of effective procedures that would control a brain’s input, output, and behavior. Artificial intelligence doesn’t work in real brains. There is no logic and no precise clock governing the outputs of our brains no matter how regular they may appear.”
Edelman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. Yale University Press.
"the brain is not a computer, yet it manipulates information...while von Neumann and others invented computers with mimicking the brain in mind (von Neumann 1958), the brain does not appear to behave as a Turing Machine "
Danchin, A. (2009). Information of the chassis and information of the program in synthetic cells. Systems and synthetic biology, 3(1-4), 125-134.
“Determinism would be the crucial issue if the early modern atomist–reductionist picture were true. That is, if the causal capacities of complex entities were nothing but the combined causal effects if the entities’ constituents, and if the most basic constituents operated according to deterministic laws, then it would indeed seem to be the case that humans could do nothing other than what their atoms, in aggregate, do…
We have argued that this picture is wrong on three counts. First, it is widely accepted that the ‘‘atoms’’ (in the philosophical sense) do not behave deterministically. Second, it is becoming more and more widely recognized that complex dynamical systems can exhibit new sorts of causal capacities not found at the level of their constituents. We have emphasized, among these, sentience, goal seeking, consciousness, acting for a reason, and self-evaluation. Third, we have argued that higher-level systems exert downward effects on their constituents via selection among possibilities generated randomly, probabilistically, or according to deterministic lower-level laws.”
Murphy, N., Brown, W.S (2007). Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Last edited:
- Status