1. 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!

Featured Against Scientific Materialism

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by sayak83, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,750
    Ratings:
    +2,668
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Ah yes the dreaded "mainstream". Why not bring in "sheeple" while you are about it? :D

    Anyway it's not clear what you mean by "scientific materialism". You could mean either the methodological naturalism which is part and parcel of the scientific method but has no metaphysical connotations, or you could mean physicalism, the worldview - which is far from intrinsic to science - that the scientifically observable world is all there is.
     
    #21 exchemist, Jan 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  2. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,948
    Ratings:
    +4,010
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    I think that assuming that WE are the WORKING of a certain amount of neurons, ergo that our conssciousness, feelings, love, etc, are ultimately reducible to physical processes and information theory, is much more parsimonious than postulating weird metaphysical realities for which there is no evidence.

    And simplifies things. It makes it obvious why physics (vodka, neurodegeneration, hammers on the head) can affect the I so easily. No need for funny theories like the brain being a radio capturing metaphysical waves or similar nonsense, lol.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,723
    Ratings:
    +3,745
    Religion:
    atheist
    Who makes this claim?
     
  4. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    You are falsely presuming the "metaphysical" means "not of the realm of physics". It doesn't. No does it mean "supernatural", as many also wrongly presume.
     
  5. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,948
    Ratings:
    +4,010
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Well, I am not a professional philosopher, obviously, so I figured that “meta” meant something like “beyond” or something.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Think of a single candle burning, in your mind. Is there a candle burning in your mind? No. Can you see it there, burning, in your mind's eye? Yes.

    That candle you see burning in your 'mind's eye' is a 'metaphysical' candle. It transcends the possibilities and limitations of all the various physical phenomena from which it has sprung. This does not mean, however, that it's non-physical, or unnatural. It is comprised of energy, and matter, and the "natural" inter-relatedness of these. Yet it does mean that physics, and nature, are capable of transcendence. And, in fact, it's happening all the time. Life is an example of metaphysical transcendence. So is consciousness. Neither of these is non-physical, or unnatural. Yet both of them opened up a whole new universe of possibilities that were not present in any of the physical phenomena from which they sprung.
     
    #26 PureX, Jan 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  7. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    8,687
    Ratings:
    +1,439
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love

    reality is both objective and subjective. and reality is physical it just isn't static forms and vibrating faster/slower.

    my studies in both alchemy,hermeticism, hinduism, buddhism, and all relate mind, body, and force as one thing. three in one, or the thrice great, or the trinity.
     
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,723
    Ratings:
    +3,745
    Religion:
    atheist
    Not a pretty picture.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,614
    Ratings:
    +2,672
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    From time to time? How do you constrain that?
     
  10. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,437
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    So you are defining metaphysical as imaginary.
     
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    If you want to spend you time working at not understanding me, be my guest.
     
  12. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,545
    Ratings:
    +2,707
    Religion:
    None
    The essay is nothing more than a Gish Gallop of unsupported and banal claims.
     
  13. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,437
    Ratings:
    +1,784
    Hey, if you want to cop an attitude just because I asked a question, fine. OR you could attempt to explain why stating that ..."That candle you see burning in your 'mind's eye' is a 'metaphysical' candle..." isn't akin to stating that an imaginary candle and a metaphysical candle are the same thing.
     
  14. sealchan

    sealchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,776
    Ratings:
    +1,567
    Religion:
    Christian
    I read the first few paragraphs...I think that the limitation might be defined as science cant see the objective outcomes of subjective and arbitrary circumstance. This is due to not being able to restate any more succinctly that which is systemic in nature. However, science will demonstrate this very clearly as it reaches that proverbial wall at the end of the Universe which it also self-defines.

    The description of anyones experience involves a great heap of arbitrary conditions that science finds too tedious to trace out. The complex entanglements of causality on the stage of actuality is too subjective and parochial to be of much interest to a scientist. It is all random noise and unpatterned trivia.

    But this unpatterned trivia is significant to the being who finds him/her self in its center. The self-aware being, reviewing the particulars of its circumstance finds in them the ultimate meaning for good or ill. This self-evaluation in the name of self improvement is often far from the fires that feed a science whose practice seeks to make the individual irrelevant.

    But there is no special "substance" one might label "experience" or "consciousness" which we can adequately explore independently of science. There is simply a need for each individual to reincarnated knowledge of the world the best way they can. Finding one's path to truth then is inherently a matter of and also aside from science.
     
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,656
    Ratings:
    +2,765
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    You're referring to self-awareness?

    Indeed, as far as I'm aware there does not exist at this stage a confirmed description of the mechanisms that generate self-awareness in functioning brains.

    That doesn't mean no such description is possible. Any such description, when it's found, will need to be in scientific / materialist terms because otherwise it won't describe self-awareness, consciousness, qualia, whatever, in terms of reality. And if it doesn't do that, then it will be neither meaningful nor useful.
     
  16. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,656
    Ratings:
    +2,765
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Truth is retrospective, not absolute. I don't constrain it ─ it constrains itself.

    Put it this way: it was once true that the world is flat and the heavenly bodies go round it. Now it isn't; and seen from the 21st century the ancients were wrong. But they weren't wrong when they were alive.

    And it used to be true that gravity was an instantaneous force. Now it's neither. Phlogiston once accounted for fire. No more. Light used to travel in the medium of the lumeniferous ether. Now it doesn't. The earth's crust used to be uniformly solid. Now it isn't.

    Who knows what's true now ─ is the best opinion of our best brains ─ that won't be true in the future? The Copenhagen interpretation, perhaps, as Einstein wished?

    Watch this space.
     
  17. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Ratings:
    +539
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    We cant abserve other peoples dreams, but dreams are real. Also, out of body experiences and near death experiences and extra sensory perceptions are a phenomonon in the human race, but we cant directly observe those either. But theres enough of them to know there real.

    Science needs to increase its scope of exploration.

    Luckily there are scientists who do just that. They are not in power to change the mainstream, but, they still do science in these areas.
     
  18. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,568
    Ratings:
    +8,014
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Let us assume we find a sophisticated information processing system floating around in deep space. What could possibly be the criteria by which we could ever say that "this set of physical processes occuring inside its system implies that there is an experiential component to what that system is doing, i.e. it is something like being this infomation processing system." What would ever connect the phenomena of "having an experience" with "observed set of physical process" for any general entity in this universe?
    What we are doing for us is crude similarity analysis. Our brains have these "X processes" and they are correlated with these "Y experiences". But science works with universal laws that need to be predictive and verifiable. How would we go about building any such thing based on a specific crude correlation occuring within a very specific organic system in one specific little corner of the universe?
     
  19. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,568
    Ratings:
    +8,014
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    This holds for a camera too. Physical processes inside the camera impacts the photo it is taking. Does it mean that the camera is also experiencing the photo it is printing out?
     
  20. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    70,530
    Ratings:
    +28,584
    Religion:
    Erotic Dancing Girls
    You are correct, although the term -- outside of philosophy and in popular usage -- can mean almost anything.
     
Loading...