9 Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism

[blü 2]

That is part of it, however reality is also our own perception of not only the outside reality, but our proclivities and also, unevidenced beliefs.

I have three assumptions. They're assumptions because in each case I can't demonstrate their correctness without already assuming they're correct. They are, first, that a world exists external to the self, second, that one's senses are capable of sufficiently informing the self about that world, and third, that reason is a valid tool. (You share at least the first two or you wouldn't be posting here, and I trust you share the third.)

Pertaining to materialism, my perception has a lot of non materialism /classic materialism/, inference.

What are examples? From what do you infer those examples?

I have a thread somewhere, titled "Pink flamingos prove creationism", in that thread, argumentation for non creationism is based on complete speculation. There is no evidence for it, only suspicion, and theories.

I take it you mean there is no evidence for non-creationism? That would be a version of Gosse's Last Thursdayism, would it not? Last Thursdayism works for any purported origin of the universe, even those more fanciful than Genesis creation. It brings us to questions of triviality, relevance and the value of scientific method, and they all bring us back to the question I asked you: what is your definition of 'truth'?

Materialism must be evidenced by materialism

No, like any hypothesis about reality, it's to be justified by comparing it to reality. And when we look, we find that reality is wall-to-wall material. One day we might find evidence that requires us to revise that view, but that's true of everything.

No reason to believe it

Where do you think your parents, air, water, food, companionship, sex, and line input come from except from a material external world? I'm interested to understand your answer to that.

 

[Quintessence]

The problem is that dualism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is brought forward it will be said to be consistent with dualism. If all evidence is consistent with dualism, then no evidence is consistent with dualism. It is simply a belief.

[/COLOR][/FONT]

This "problem" is shared with all forms of substance philosophy, including substance monism (of which materialism, idealism, spiritualism, are subtypes). I'm not sure why you point this out?

That will only become sayable after the reality of the 'immaterial' is established. Presently there's no evidence for it at all that's satisfactory to reasoned enquiry.

If by "evidence" you mean the subset of evidence which hinges on substance materialist assumptions, sure. But I don't think it makes much sense to hold a philosophy solely accountable to the standards of another and then falsely declare there's "no evidence" for it at all. If you look at other philosophies on their own terms there have been plenty of logical argumentations put forth by scholars and average Joe's throughout history. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't agree with this and don't find these arguments, proofs, or evidence persuasive."

Personally, I think the reality of the immaterial is a given. There are so many things we experience that don't have a physical form I would think this is common sense. Ideas are not material, for one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

This "problem" is shared with all forms of substance philosophy, including substance monism (of which materialism, idealism, spiritualism, are subtypes). I'm not sure why you point this out?

Are you sure about that? I would think that almost any form of ESP would void materialism.

 

[Quintessence]

Are you sure about that? I would think that almost any form of ESP would void materialism.

I don't think it would. If someone with substance materialist assumptions attempts to study ESP, they would understand it from the vantage point of their own philosophical assumptions. It's why a substance materialist is going to tend to dismiss the existence of it in the apparent world entirely because they perceive there is "no evidence" for it. And if there was evidence for it, it would cease to be a non-materialist phenomena and become science for them, or supported by materialist assumptions.

One of the things I ran across as I was studying magic years back was the observation that those of a certain philosophical persuasion cease to call things magic once they are categorized by the sciences. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Why we do that is an interesting question to think about that.

 

[1137]

@1137, old friend, it seems to me you're not doing so well here, taking to silence or defensive mocking instead of making reasoned replies that address the problems of the immaterial.

For the immaterial to be part of reality, we have to be able to distinguish it from the imaginary, don't we?

How are we going to do that?

For the immaterial to be part of reality, there must be evidence of it in reality, and there simply isn't, no?

For the immaterial to be a real part of human mentation, we must encounter detectable phenomena attributable to it as we watch brains working in real time, must we not?

And we see nothing of the kind, correct?

If you're unable to address these questions then your jibe of fideism and your purported consequent laughter don't have any basis, do they?

*Reads the evidence of the immaterial, immediately pretends no evidence for it can be presented.* Must be a Materialist. Perhaps I respond in such a way because it is the only appropriate way to do so? Do you seriously debate with flat earthers, young earth creationists, people who think the moon landing was fake? Or does serious debate require a serious position to debate?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It can be falsified by materialism.

What observation would support materialism to the exclusion of dualism? If you can't describe a potential observation that would falsify dualism then dualism is little more than a belief.

Once again I must ask if you don't think materialism is more supported than Dualism, why do you believe materialism? If Dualism isn't falsified by materialism why believe the latter? I just can't imagine having a position that can't show why it's true and others aren't, so help me out.

Again, I asked for an OBSERVATION. I think dualism is not falsifiable, and every post where you fail to describe observations that would falsify dualism is another post that supports my argument.

Is that a joke? Aren't you the one who's been repeatedly pointing out doing something to the brain affects the mind? Do you not know what "interaction" means?

I know what it means. Where is the evidence that there is an interaction between an independent consciousness and the brain?

Really, so if something bad happened to you, like an illness or suicide, do you think it would have no impact on your mother? Do you REALLY not understand how separate things influence each other?

So you are saying that we have two consciousnesses, one in our brain and one that is immaterial and interacts with the consciousness that is already in our brain?

A mechanism of how Consciousness arises, a refutation of the law of identity, a refutation of the law of consciousness, showing that mental events have the same properties as matter... Literally anything.

I will refute those after we get past your first point.

Even if I pointed to you towards it you would just throw a fit telling me that it's somehow against philosophy to link or reference things, so what's the point?

That you think philosophical beliefs are evidence says a lot.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. The BoP does indeed start with me. I supported it by explaining:

"Well we just look at the properties it has. When I think it doesn't take up more space in the room, my love for my SO cannot be measured, my "perfect place" I use in meditation cannot be seen by others... It's up to YOU the Materialist to show that these things actually do reduce to matter."

When you load a picture of a sandy beach onto a hard drive, does the hard drive increase in size? If the hard drive does not increase in size does this mean that there is an immaterial consciousness interacting with the computer hard drive that produces that image?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This "problem" is shared with all forms of substance philosophy, including substance monism (of which materialism, idealism, spiritualism, are subtypes). I'm not sure why you point this out?

That is false. The claim that our mind or consciousness is produced by the brain could be falsified by the observation of a human consciousness acting independent of the brain. For example, an ethereal ghost leaves the body and starts moving stuff around the room.

If by "evidence" you mean the subset of evidence which hinges on substance materialist assumptions, sure. But I don't think it makes much sense to hold a philosophy solely accountable to the standards of another and then falsely declare there's "no evidence" for it at all. If you look at other philosophies on their own terms there have been plenty of logical argumentations put forth by scholars and average Joe's throughout history. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't agree with this and don't find these arguments, proofs, or evidence persuasive."

Personally, I think the reality of the immaterial is a given. There are so many things we experience that don't have a physical form I would think this is common sense. Ideas are not material, for one.

As blu 2 has pointed out, what distinguishes dualism from the imagined?

 

[Desert Snake]

I have three assumptions. They're assumptions because in each case I can't demonstrate their correctness without already assuming they're correct. They are, first, that a world exists external to the self, second, that one's senses are capable of sufficiently informing the self about that world, and third, that reason is a valid tool. (You share at least the first two or you wouldn't be posting here, and I trust you share the third.)

Right.

What are examples? From what do you infer those examples?
I take it you mean there is no evidence for non-creationism? That would be a version of Gosse's Last Thursdayism, would it not? Last Thursdayism works for any purported origin of the universe, even those more fanciful than Genesis creation. It brings us to questions of triviality, relevance and the value of scientific method, and they all bring us back to the question I asked you: what is your definition of 'truth'?

Truth means our perception of things. We have to go by that, otherwise you are invalidating your premise.

No, like any hypothesis about reality, it's to be justified by comparing it to reality. And when we look, we find that reality is wall-to-wall material.

No, I don't find that. You do.

One day we might find evidence that requires us to revise that view, but that's true of everything.

Again the 'we'. You are contradicting your premise.

Where do you think your parents, air, water, food, companionship, sex, and line input come from except from a material external world? I'm interested to understand your answer to that.

You are limiting the material perception to parameters that don't hold, compared to perception. This again violates your premise, and creates ' materialism based on materialism' argument, which doesn't hold for my perception, and more broadly, does not hold for even an apparent "explanation" for the universe. You seem to think theoretical musings explain away the materialism problems, scientifically, but they don't. You don't prove things by an assumption or hypothesis that presumes your theory.

/ your usage of "we", which is contextually incorrect, since you know that isn't my perception, could be removing a personal adherence to your own argument, in a sense. You are using 'we' in a sense of neither presenting it personally, ie 'I', and and also inferring an unknown , incorrect concensus of perception. A truer argument would be presented as 'my' perception, or, 'my and so and so'.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Truth means our perception of things. We have to go by that, otherwise you are invalidating your premise.

I perceive that the Sun is moving about the Earth. Does this mean that a stationary Earth is the truth?

You are limiting the material perception to parameters that don't hold, compared to perception. This again violates your premise, and creates ' materialism based on materialism' argument, which doesn't hold for my perception, and more broadly, does not hold for even an apparent "explanation" for the universe. You seem to think theoretical musings explain away the materialism problems, scientifically, but they don't. You don't prove things by an assumption or hypothesis that presumes your theory.

Why should we find your perceptions to be compelling or an accurate description of reality?

 

[Quintessence]

That is false.

I don't agree. That said, it's pretty common for folks to be unaware of the philosophical assumptions that underpin their worldviews.

The claim that our mind or consciousness is produced by the brain could be falsified by the observation of a human consciousness acting independent of the brain

This is an example of what I was talking about before up in post #84. Generally speaking, falsifiability demands materialist assumptions in the minds of folks who are substance materialists already. It is akin to demanding that an artist provide a scientific basis for their poetry. This isn't to say we can't look at one discipline or philosophy from the perspective of another, but I think it's really important to recognize that's what's going on and know one's own biases and assumptions. Other conclusions are possible under different sets of assumptions, but it demands thinking outside the box one usually thinks in. That's not easy for many folks to do, as noted above, since folks are often blind to their own assumptions. They don't know they are thinking in a box, so they can't think outside of it.

Personally, I really don't care about the nebulous term "consciousness" and where or what it comes from, especially if we're fixating on humans. I hate the term "consciousness" and often avoid using it entirely. It has little to no impact on my rejection of substance monism, materialist or otherwise (or my rejection of substance dualism). I disagree with most of the argumentation in the opening post, I just felt like being constructive rather than critical.

As blu 2 has pointed out, what distinguishes dualism from the imagined?

I don't follow why such a distinction would be necessary. That which humans call imaginary are one of the types of intangibles we experience. It's a component of certain forms of substance dualism, from what I understand.

 

[WalterTrull]

I perceive that the Sun is moving about the Earth. Does this mean that a stationary Earth is the truth?

I'm thinking:"Kinda depends". Ptolemy thought so. Copernicus thought the sun was stationary. I forget who thought everything revolved around a big fire in the center of the universe. Ol' Nicolaus simplified the study of the heavens. Probably a lot more to come. As long as I don't travel very far, flat earth works for me. Truth? I doubt that any of that is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't agree. That said, it's pretty common for folks to be unaware of the philosophical assumptions that underpin their worldviews.

I am very aware of the philosophical underpinnings of my worldview which is why I gave an example of an observation that would falsify my position.

I said that the problem with dualism is it is not falsifiable. You tried to make the claim that materialism is also not falsifiable. I refuted this claim by describing an observation that would falsify materialism.

This is an example of what I was talking about before up in post #84. Generally speaking, falsifiability demands materialist assumptions in the minds of folks who are substance materialists already. It is akin to demanding that an artist provide a scientific basis for their poetry. This isn't to say we can't look at one discipline or philosophy from the perspective of another, but I think it's really important to recognize that's what's going on and know one's own biases and assumptions. Other conclusions are possible under different sets of assumptions, but it demands thinking outside the box one usually thinks in. That's not easy for many folks to do, as noted above, since folks are often blind to their own assumptions. They don't know they are thinking in a box, so they can't think outside of it.

Personally, I really don't care about the nebulous term "consciousness" and where or what it comes from, especially if we're fixating on humans. I hate the term "consciousness" and often avoid using it entirely. It has little to no impact on my rejection of substance monism, materialist or otherwise (or my rejection of substance dualism). I disagree with most of the argumentation in the opening post, I just felt like being constructive rather than critical.

Until you describe what these assumptions are and how they are problematic I really don't see how there is a problem. Just to be clear, it is the dualists who are saying that the immaterial has effects on the material world.

 

[1137]

What observation would support materialism to the exclusion of dualism? If you can't describe a potential observation that would falsify dualism then dualism is little more than a belief.

All the ones I listed? I literally gave you a list of things that would prove materialism which you apparently ignored. For example, you could provide a mechanism by which consciousness arises from matter, or show that mental properties match physical properties.

Again, I asked for an OBSERVATION. I think dualism is not falsifiable, and every post where you fail to describe observations that would falsify dualism is another post that supports my argument.

If materialism is true it falsifies Dualism, and you don't believe Dualism can be falsified? So then why do you believe materialism? Again I did give you several observation, would you like them again?

"A mechanism of how Consciousness arises, a refutation of the law of identity, a refutation of the law of consciousness, showing that mental events have the same properties as matter... Literally anything."

True that logic is not observation but if your observations contradict logic then logic wins.

know what it means. Where is the evidence that there is an interaction between an independent consciousness and the brain?

So you're not a serious debator is that it? Just messing with people to get a rise? Cause the evidence is kinda clearly listed, over and over again...

So you are saying that we have two consciousnesses, one in our brain and one that is immaterial and interacts with the consciousness that is already in our brain?

Where in the world did you even get that? Why can't you answer my simple question?

will refute those after we get past your first point.

I love this new thing where materialists pretend they can refute other positions and then talk about it, instead of actually refuting haha. It's cute.

That you think philosophical beliefs are evidence says a lot.

Well of course. If one doesn't trust philosophy they can believe whatever they want, even against logic. What's telling is that you and your peers don't respect philosophy, which must be why you're able to easily believe absurd and illogical positions

When you load a picture of a sandy beach onto a hard drive, does the hard drive increase in size? If the hard drive does not increase in size does this mean that there is an immaterial consciousness interacting with the computer hard drive that produces that image?

Well it's possible that consciousness produces everything if the idealists are right, and they have a lot in their favor. I'd direct you to Bernardo Kastrup's "Ontological Solution to the Mind Body Problem." So technically none of it could be material for all we know. Also yes, loading an image on the computer will take up X amount of space on the computer so...

That is false. The claim that our mind or consciousness is produced by the brain could be falsified by the observation of a human consciousness acting independent of the brain. For example, an ethereal ghost leaves the body and starts moving stuff around the room.

Yeah like overriding depression with wilfull conscious intent, or creating something in the objective universe that only stems from the subjective one, or consciousness spreading rapidly through a species in a way genetic mutation does not occur, or literally any of the evidence that's been provided for gods and the like.

As blu 2 has pointed out, what distinguishes dualism from the imagined?

Logic (though you admitted to having no respect for it) and evidence? I mean... C'mon.

I perceive that the Sun is moving about the Earth. Does this mean that a stationary Earth is the truth?



Why should we find your perceptions to be compelling or an accurate description of reality?

This is hysterical from a Materialist. You realize materialism put full faith in the senses and such right?

 

[1137]

I am very aware of the philosophical underpinnings of my worldview which is why I gave an example of an observation that would falsify my position.

I said that the problem with dualism is it is not falsifiable. You tried to make the claim that materialism is also not falsifiable. I refuted this claim by describing an observation that would falsify materialism.

And yet when I show you how Dualism could be shown false you pretend there's no way to do so. It's clear now that like basically every materialist you are not an honest or sincere debator.

til you describe what these assumptions are and how they are problematic I really don't see how there is a problem. Just to be clear, it is the dualists who are saying that the immaterial has effects on the material world.

They've been elaborated upon ad nauseum. Reported.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

All the ones I listed? I literally gave you a list of things that would prove materialism which you apparently ignored. For example, you could provide a mechanism by which consciousness arises from matter, or show that mental properties match physical properties.

What observation would demonstrate such a mechanism in your eyes?

If materialism is true it falsifies Dualism, and you don't believe Dualism can be falsified?

The problem is that no matter what evidence is given for materialism you will claim that it also supports dualism, as seen in your other posts. Can you give an example of an observation, if made, that would support materialism to the exclusion of dualism? I bet you can't. You know why? Dualism is unfalsifiable.

So then why do you believe materialism? Again I did give you several observation, would you like them again?

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between an observation and a claim. What you have is a list of claims, not observations. A proposed mechanism is not an observation. Do you understand the difference between an observation and a mechanism?

True that logic is not observation but if your observations contradict logic then logic wins.

If observations contradict a proposed law then the law is wrong. This is why Einstein's theory of relativity replaced the laws of gravity written by Newton.

So you're not a serious debator is that it? Just messing with people to get a rise? Cause the evidence is kinda clearly listed, over and over again...

Claims are not evidence. Observations are evidence.

Well of course. If one doesn't trust philosophy they can believe whatever they want, even against logic. What's telling is that you and your peers don't respect philosophy, which must be why you're able to easily believe absurd and illogical positions

Now you think philosophy is an observation.

Also yes, loading an image on the computer will take up X amount of space on the computer so...

That is false. If I upload a picture of an elephant onto my hard drive it is the same size and weight as it was before. There is the same amount of physical space in the hard drive.

Yeah like overriding depression with wilfull conscious intent, or creating something in the objective universe that only stems from the subjective one, or consciousness spreading rapidly through a species in a way genetic mutation does not occur, or literally any of the evidence that's been provided for gods and the like.

All of those are claims. First, you assume that what we do is willful. That is a claim. Second, you assume that there is a separate subjective universe. That is a claim. You claim that increased intelligence spread quickly in our species in a way that genetic mutations do not occur, but no observations to back it. Like I said, no evidence.

Logic (though you admitted to having no respect for it) and evidence? I mean... C'mon.

Bare assertions are neither logical nor evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And yet when I show you how Dualism could be shown false you pretend there's no way to do so.

You did no such thing. You didn't list a single observation.

 

[blü 2]

*Reads the evidence of the immaterial, immediately pretends no evidence for it can be presented.*

Please refresh my memory. What evidence have you presented to demonstrate that the immaterial is part of reality?

Do you seriously debate with flat earthers, young earth creationists, people who think the moon landing was fake?

I've debated YECs at some length and thus learnt a lot about YECs. I haven't encountered flat earthers or antimoonlanders in a debating situation so far.

But here I'm debating ─ at your invitation, since it's your thread ─ propositions of dualism and immateriality, and they seem to me to have a wholly insufficient basis.

An excellent starting point for a conversation would be for you to tell me how we ─ anyone ─ can distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.

 

[1137]

What observation would demonstrate such a mechanism in your eyes?

Now I have to solve your problems for you? Haha I have no idea what the mechanism would look like cause nobody has even come close to finding such a thing. However, I can easily tell you have to observe if thoughts take up space and such, just look! I'll send you a pic of me and my girl in our house, and you measure the love in the room based off said picture. Then I'll concede and accept materialism.

The problem is that no matter what evidence is given for materialism you will claim that it also supports dualism, as seen in your other posts. Can you give an example of an observation, if made, that would support materialism to the exclusion of dualism? I bet you can't. You know why? Dualism is unfalsifiable.

That's simply untrue, you've just only shared one piece of evidence so far. I literally told you what evidence would convince me of materialism, several times. Also, really simple argument here.

1. Materialism being true would falsify Dualism.
2. Dualism cannot be falsified.
3. Therefore materialism cannot be true.

So which is it? Is Dualism unfalsifiable it is materialism true? They are mutually exclusive.

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between an observation and a claim. What you have is a list of claims, not observations. A proposed mechanism is not an observation. Do you understand the difference between an observation and a mechanism?

Wait... Are you kidding me? You think we cannot observe mechanisms? You mean, like the observation upon which things like evolution are founded upon? Give me a break.

If observations contradict a proposed law then the law is wrong. This is why Einstein's theory of relativity replaced the laws of gravity written by Newton.

Hahahhah so you don't even believe logic! A can be Non A if we think we observe it! Bachelor's can be married! Squares could be circular! Who know?! See point 8 in OP: materialism reduces to absurdity. Considering logic itself is immateral this is not surprising for a Materialist.

Claims are not evidence. Observations are evidence.

Right, like observing an empty room and seeing X amount of space. Now add to X the amount of space mine and my SOs material body take up. Now put us in the room together, accounting for the space we take up, and see measure how much space is taken up by our love, lust, shared memories, etc. You will OBSERVE that no extra space is taken up, thus scientifically proving materialism wrong.

Now go ahead, say I haven't shown evidence or observation again buddy.

Now you think philosophy is an observation.

Nowhere in: "If one doesn't trust philosophy they can believe whatever they want, even against logic. What's telling is that you and your peers don't respect philosophy, which must be why you're able to easily believe absurd and illogical positions" do I suggest philosophy is "an observation". You even quote me saying "True that logic is not observation".

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation

Reported.

That is false. If I upload a picture of an elephant onto my hard drive it is the same size and weight as it was before. There is the same amount of physical space in the hard drive.

You know your computer can run out of space right???

Allf those are claims. First, you assume that what we do is willful. That is a claim.

Well no I accept that what we do is willful since that what cognitive science has shown us.

Second, you assume that there is a separate subjective universe. That is a claim.

You're not really suggesting there's no difference between subjective and objective, are you?

claim that increased intelligence spread quickly in our species in a way that genetic mutations do not occur, but no observations to back it. Like I said, no evidence.

Right. The upper paleolithic revolution didn't happen cause you say so. I'm on to you. We're done here.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is materialism? It is known as other things like material reductionism and physicalism among others. It is the view that only one substance exists – matter – and that all reduces to matter. This is a faith-based position that is spreading wildly through the West as a reaction to oppressive Western religions. It is philosophically unsound and has no supporting evidence. Let at look at this.

1) The “evidence” for materialism is that doing something to the brain effects how consciousness comes through. Take a drug or a hammer to your head and you may start slurring, seeing things, hearing things, stumbling, etc. This is not evidence of materialism because it is also expected in more supported positions such as dualism and idealism, as we will see. It is the only support that materialism has presented thus far in its favor and it does not even actually suggest materialism itself. We will look at this more below.

2) The Law of Identity is the most basic and foundational law of logic and states that things with different properties cannot be identical – “A is A and not Non-A”. The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more. We can illustrate this by looking at a brain, having others see it as well, and measuring the space taken up by the brain. Now imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings. This includes matter. So to reduce consciousness to matter reduces the one thing we know with certainty to something that we know through it. This is unreasonable.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain. Self-regulation, internal coping skills, bio-feedback, meditation – all are conscious and willful acts that override the material body. This can be seen such as in a depression patient recognizing a depressed episode coming on and using skills like Self-talk and meditation to keep the episode at bay. This is scientific fact, and once you remove willful engagement from therapy it becomes ineffective. Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will. One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe. Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”. Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

7) The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was an event in human history that saw the species leap from “just another animal” to a species with higher consciousness. This led to the creation of art, religion, the rise of individuality, the creation of languages, the formations of societies, etc. Everything that let human beings become the dominant species on this planet occurred during the UPR. However, we had already existed as an evolved species for tens of thousands of years before the UPR. Further, this changes seems to have affected the species as a whole over a relatively short amount of time, rather than through the longer-term genetic changes we see with evolution. On top of this, the consciousness that it produced, as we have been discussing, had not only different properties from the natural world but was able to question, manipulate, and go against it. This again shows that consciousness is entirely different from the material world and how it functions.

8 ) Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it. For example it pretends to be a skeptical position but relies on the senses and puts what we know aside for what we know through it. This is the exact opposite of skepticism, and skepticism and materialism are mutually exclusive.

Further absurdity is that the only “evidence” for materialism amounts to nothing more than correlations – we may as well also accept the pastafarian position that the decline in pirates causes global warming!

Metaphors that materialism tries to create reduce to absurdity – for example they will say “mind” is what the brain does like “running” is what feet do, that “mind” and “running” have the same properties. Does running not take up space, can it not be seen, heard, felt? Another example is that water is not identical to the atoms which create it, similar to the mind and brain. Yet are both atoms and water not spacial, objective, universally accessible?

Yet another absurd reduction of materialism is again found in the single piece of evidence that doing things to the brain affects consciousness. Sure, maybe this means that materialism is true, but there is no other evidence that materialism is true! It would be like saying “well MAYBE magic leprechauns are the cause of gravity.” Sure that could theoretically explain it, but is that really the most rational way to go about it?

9) Finally, materialism is dangerous. For example we can look at mental and behavioral health and how those are treated. For instance, any good doctor who prescribes medication to address the physiological side of mental illness will also recommend therapy to address the mental side. As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur. It would be dangerous to address only the physiological and not the mental aspects of these illnesses. Further, belief that individuals are deterministic machines with no control over their lives would make any kind of mental/behavioral healthwork impossible. Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

SUMMARY / TLDR

Materialism does not have evidence that supports it specifically and relies on faith in future discovery, it violates the Law of Identity, it puts what we know (consciousness) under what we know through it (matter), the abilities of consciousness go against the material world, consciousness can manipulate and change the material world, what we know about the rise of consciousness doesn’t fit with materialistic evolution as we know it, materialism reduces to absurdity, and materialism is a dangerous faith that puts its own beliefs over objective knowledge which could benefit human beings.

I am not up on such things, but it seems you are adressing only one kind of materialism here

 

[1137]

Please refresh my memory. What evidence have you presented to demonstrate that the immaterial is part of reality?

Wow. Let me just stick to this thread for time.


2) The Law of Identity is the most basic and foundational law of logic and states that things with different properties cannot be identical – “A is A and not Non-A”. The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more. We can illustrate this by looking at a brain, having others see it as well, and measuring the space taken up by the brain. Now imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings. This includes matter. So to reduce consciousness to matter reduces the one thing we know with certainty to something that we know through it. This is unreasonable.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain. Self-regulation, internal coping skills, bio-feedback, meditation – all are conscious and willful acts that override the material body. This can be seen such as in a depression patient recognizing a depressed episode coming on and using skills like Self-talk and meditation to keep the episode at bay. This is scientific fact, and once you remove willful engagement from therapy it becomes ineffective. Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will. One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe. Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”. Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

7) The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was an event in human history that saw the species leap from “just another animal” to a species with higher consciousness. This led to the creation of art, religion, the rise of individuality, the creation of languages, the formations of societies, etc. Everything that let human beings become the dominant species on this planet occurred during the UPR. However, we had already existed as an evolved species for tens of thousands of years before the UPR. Further, this changes seems to have affected the species as a whole over a relatively short amount of time, rather than through the longer-term genetic changes we see with evolution. On top of this, the consciousness that it produced, as we have been discussing, had not only different properties from the natural world but was able to question, manipulate, and go against it. This again shows that consciousness is entirely different from the material world and how it functions.

8 ) Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it. For example it pretends to be a skeptical position but relies on the senses and puts what we know aside for what we know through it. This is the exact opposite of skepticism, and skepticism and materialism are mutually exclusive.

Further absurdity is that the only “evidence” for materialism amounts to nothing more than correlations – we may as well also accept the pastafarian position that the decline in pirates causes global warming!

Metaphors that materialism tries to create reduce to absurdity – for example they will say “mind” is what the brain does like “running” is what feet do, that “mind” and “running” have the same properties. Does running not take up space, can it not be seen, heard, felt? Another example is that water is not identical to the atoms which create it, similar to the mind and brain. Yet are both atoms and water not spacial, objective, universally accessible?

Yet another absurd reduction of materialism is again found in the single piece of evidence that doing things to the brain affects consciousness. Sure, maybe this means that materialism is true, but there is no other evidence that materialism is true! It would be like saying “well MAYBE magic leprechauns are the cause of gravity.” Sure that could theoretically explain it, but is that really the most rational way to go about it?

9) Finally, materialism is dangerous. For example we can look at mental and behavioral health and how those are treated. For instance, any good doctor who prescribes medication to address the physiological side of mental illness will also recommend therapy to address the mental side. As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur. It would be dangerous to address only the physiological and not the mental aspects of these illnesses. Further, belief that individuals are deterministic machines with no control over their lives would make any kind of mental/behavioral healthwork impossible. Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

You've never heard of gods? Spirits? Ghosts? NDEs, OBEs, etc? I find the correlation between materialism and unfamiliarity with other positions quite worrying

Well we just look at the properties it has. When I think it doesn't take up more space in the room, my love for my SO cannot be measured, my "perfect place" I use in meditation cannot be seen by others... It's up to YOU the Materialist to show that these things actually do reduce to matter.

Yeah like overriding depression with wilfull conscious intent, or creating something in the objective universe that only stems from the subjective one, or consciousness spreading rapidly through a species in a way genetic mutation does not occur, or literally any of the evidence that's been provided for gods and the like.

Right, like observing an empty room and seeing X amount of space. Now add to X the amount of space mine and my SOs material body take up. Now put us in the room together, accounting for the space we take up, and see measure how much space is taken up by our love, lust, shared memories, etc. You will OBSERVE that no extra space is taken up, thus scientifically proving materialism wrong.

An excellent starting point for a conversation would be for you to tell me how we ─ anyone ─ can distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.

You can't tell your own inner experience from something imaginary?!

Thank you all very much, I think this is the thread that has been my break through to treating materialism the way it deserves to be treated. Anyone preaching fideistic views will be ignored in a few hours.