Materialism is the best explanation for reality

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What does this have to do with the comment you are responding to? That memories are formed and stored physically in the brain? This is a "fact", as you call it, as it has been "copied" through "modeling" that they refer to as "experimentation". It has been verified repeatedly. So, do you not have an issue with it?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments against creationism. Next you will point out spelling errors as refuting creationism.

Anybody can see materialism is only suited for facts, very obviously. We require another category for opinions, and that is the spiritual category. And how the 2 categories are connected is that the spiritual chooses the way the material turns out. Materialism is very obviously utter rubbish philosophically, which means the question should be asked, how can utter rubbish become so popular, even and especially amongst the most highly educated people?

 

[leibowde84]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments against creationism. Next you will point out spelling errors as refuting creationism.

Anybody can see materialism is only suited for facts, very obviously. We require another category for opinions, and that is the spiritual category. And how the 2 categories are connected is that the spiritual chooses the way the material turns out. Materialism is very obviously utter rubbish philosophically, which means the question should be asked, how can utter rubbish become so popular, even and especially amongst the most highly educated people?

What is your deal with refusing to answer questions? I will repeat my question, as you completely dodged it.

What does this have to do with the comment you are responding to? That memories are formed and stored physically in the brain? This is a "fact", as you call it, as it has been "copied" through "modeling" that they refer to as "experimentation". It has been verified repeatedly. So, do you not have an issue with it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is your deal with refusing to answer questions? I will repeat my question, as you completely dodged it.

What does this have to do with the comment you are responding to? That memories are formed and stored physically in the brain? This is a "fact", as you call it, as it has been "copied" through "modeling" that they refer to as "experimentation". It has been verified repeatedly. So, do you not have an issue with it?

I remember you insisted that "indisputably true" is the correct definition of fact. Your "arguments" are arbitrary nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

I remember you insisted that "indisputably true" is the correct definition of fact. Your "arguments" are arbitrary nonsense.

It is indisputably the case that memories exist in the brain physically. But, as I clearly stated, it is even a fact according to your definition of the word. This has been shown time and time again through experimentation and neurology.

(Again) What is your deal with refusing to answer questions? I will repeat my question, as you completely dodged it.

What does this have to do with the comment you are responding to? That memories are formed and stored physically in the brain? This is a "fact", as you call it, as it has been "copied" through "modeling" that they refer to as "experimentation". It has been verified repeatedly. So, do you not have an issue with it?

 

[leibowde84]

I remember you insisted that "indisputably true" is the correct definition of fact. Your "arguments" are arbitrary nonsense.

Right back at ya slick.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Right back at ya slick.

Creationism has a conceptual scheme integrating fact and opinion in distinct categories. Creationism actually has argumentation going for it.

You only write arbitrary nonsense.

 

[leibowde84]

Creationism has a conceptual scheme integrating fact and opinion in distinct categories. Creationism actually has argumentation going for it.

You only write arbitrary nonsense.

I could say the same about you. Actually, I've only seen people on this site say the same thing about you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is indisputably the case that memories exist in the brain physically. But, as I clearly stated, it is even a fact according to your definition of the word. This has been shown time and time again through experimentation and neurology.

(Again) What is your deal with refusing to answer questions? I will repeat my question, as you completely dodged it.

What does this have to do with the comment you are responding to? That memories are formed and stored physically in the brain? This is a "fact", as you call it, as it has been "copied" through "modeling" that they refer to as "experimentation". It has been verified repeatedly. So, do you not have an issue with it?

Sounds exciting, dodging and refusing and whatever, but my answer is that what you write is arbitrary nonsense, and I consider that a valid answer to what you write.

 

[leibowde84]

Sounds exciting, dodging and refusing and whatever, but my answer is that what you write is arbitrary nonsense, and I consider that a valid answer to what you write.

You still didn't answer my question. Are you having trouble understanding what I am asking you?

 

[atanu]

....
But that's nothing compared to the challenges posed by quantum physics on the idea that systems have "real" properties (material or whatever) independently.

I remember a question from a very old scripture 'Yoga Vashista'. Sage Vashista asks his student prince rAma "Thought is immaterial. How such an immaterial thought connects with a physical organ like an arm and move it?"

I have heard casual answers as to how electrical signalling does it.

 

[atanu]

My understanding is simple. If our consciousness is a product of material interactions then how can we claim to be equipped for objective thought? The same is true for science itself.

If our awareness arose from some material interactions, then we are not masters of our own mind (which of course is true of most of us who actually think and act unconsciously).

On the other hand, if we have any hope of breaking free of our unconscious actions and their effects it is because our source of awareness is unborn.

Whether the source of our awareness is material or non material is actually a bad question, since these categories themselves are known in awareness only.

The consciousness is a given category. It gets validated even while we deny it. Ultimately, if some day a machine passes the Turing test, a conscious person will have to know and certify that. There is no way that we can ever deny our own awareness.

 

[atanu]

It is indisputably the case that memories exist in the brain physically.

What do you mean? Care to elaborate and give references for the indisputable proof?

 

[leibowde84]

What do you mean? Care to elaborate and give references for the indisputable proof?

Researchers prove that memories reside in specific brain cells | KurzweilAI

I can't even hope to explain it any better than the researchers at MIT.

 

[Bunyip]

How does this violate causality in a way that is incompatible with materialism?

Short answer - it doesn't.

 

[atanu]

Researchers prove that memories reside in specific brain cells | KurzweilAI

I can't even hope to explain it any better than the researchers at MIT.

That is the danger of understanding science from newspapers. Below the newspaper piece is a note which reads as below:

How about this as an article headline: “Science writers demonstrate damage the actual understanding of mind/brain interaction by irresponsibly shining light on overly suggestive simplifications of research data.”

It is a tragic leap to assume that the crouch reaction is evidence that “an entire memory can be recalled” from stimulation. Stimulating a small number of neurons can trigger brain activity resulting in behavior consistent with a danger/pain response. The felt experience is just as unknown as before, and now hundreds if not thousands of people will have the wrong impression of how memory works. Dang ol’ grandmother cell concept.

In the newspaper article itself, the original author is cited:

“We demonstrate that behavior based on high-level cognition, such as the expression of a specific memory, can be generated in a mammal by highly specific physical activation of a specific small subpopulation of brain cells, in this case by light,” says Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience at MIT and lead author of the study reported online today in the journal Nature.

It says that specific expression (such as fear or joy) can be triggered by stimulating particular brain areas. The newspaper heading is very misleading.

I am not contesting that data resides in brain areas. That data resides in colourful liquids in brain (called 'antarkahana', inner instrument--mind/brain) is recorded in more than 5 thousand year old scriptures. But, the interpreter/decoder of that data is not that same data.

Further, a joey, just after its birth travel all the distance from mother kangaroo's womb to her nipple located far away inside the pouch. Where did this memory of this path come from? This joey is just born.

The matter is not so simple.

 

[atanu]

Short answer - it doesn't.

Yeah. And so we with our intelligence will unravel the root of that causal chain, although that intelligence is a product in that causal chain? May be.

 

[atanu]

Researchers prove that memories reside in specific brain cells | KurzweilAI

I can't even hope to explain it any better than the researchers at MIT.

I see that in your avatar picture you have declared that you are willing to learn. Tell me, what chance anyone has of learning, if our intelligence is an effect of the causal chain?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Further, a joey, just after its birth travel all the distance from mother kangaroo's womb to her nipple located far away inside the pouch. Where did this memory of this path come from? This joey is just born.

The matter is not so simple.

A question that can be answered on the first page of a Google search actually is pretty simple.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah. And so we with our intelligence will unravel the root of that causal chain, although that intelligence is a product in that causal chain? May be.

What is the problem there? Sure, intelligence being a product of the brain can figure stuff out.

 

[Bunyip]

That is the danger of understanding science from newspapers. Below the newspaper piece is a note which reads as below:



In the newspaper article itself, the original author is cited:



It says that specific expression (such as fear or joy) can be triggered by stimulating particular brain areas. The newspaper heading is very misleading.

I am not contesting that data resides in brain areas. That data resides in colourful liquids in brain (called 'antarkahana', inner instrument--mind/brain) is recorded in more than 5 thousand year old scriptures. But, the interpreter/decoder of that data is not that same data.

Further, a joey, just after its birth travel all the distance from mother kangaroo's womb to her nipple located far away inside the pouch. Where did this memory of this path come from? This joey is just born.

The matter is not so simple.

What is the issue with joey's finding the nipple? How is that a problem for materialism?
Your idea that for some reason if you can find something not yet explained - that is an argument against materialism just doesn't work I'm afraid. It is called an appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance fallacy.