Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Nakosis]

No idea. Perhaps nothing. I merely separate our process for testing knowledge (science) from the rest. I'm a methodological naturalist, basically.



Meh...if you're suggesting there are limits to what I know, and I might be wrong, then of course this is true. But getting a materialist to explain love is somewhat akin to getting a piano tuner to explain Tchaikovsky. Whether his explanation of the notes is 'right' or 'wrong' is hardly the point. That was what I meant by the risk of reductionism. The materialist doesn't need to be 'wrong' in any measurable sense for me to see it as potentially limiting as a way of looking at the world.

Ok, to me love is easily explainable as a physical process. I understand some would prefer this to remain a mystery.

All emotions are caused by a release of chemicals. Listening to music can trigger a pleasant emotional/release of these chemicals.
It is all a physical and the more neuroscience investigates the mind the more we understand how this physical process works.

If you want magic however, it's best not to look behind the curtain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, to me love is easily explainable as a physical process. I understand some would prefer this to remain a mystery.

All emotions are cause by a release of chemicals. Listening to music can trigger a pleasant emotional/release of these chemicals.
It is all a physical and the more neuroscience investigates the mind the more we understand how this physical process works.

If you want magic however, it's best not to look behind the curtain.

Well, if he´wants magic, that is also physical. Why do you complain about humans being physical ás different than you? That your position is right and all other contradictory ones are wrong, is all physical.

 

[Nakosis]

No, you end up in a regress. You compare 2 different rule you need a 3rd rule, a meta rule to figure out which of the 2 one are correct. The problem is that you don't know if the meta rule is correct. For that you need a meta-meta rule and so on. It is an infinite regress.

I'm not worried about which rule set is correct. It is beyond the point of my argument.

It has already been test. All rules are in the mind and that is the limit of epistemological rationalism- For the physical you do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

Sure, if you ever want to gaslight something, build up a philosophy around it.

The problem is that there is no one set of rules for what science is or what the physical is and we are back to the problem again. Science is a belief system that apparently works, but it is not the only one.

Yes, I'm not really involving science, I'm using materialism as the "belief" system.
materialism | Definition, Theories, History, & Facts

So back to my original question perhaps in a different form: What belief system do you use that does not involve materialism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not worried about which rule set is correct. It is beyond the point of my argument.



Sure, if you ever want to gaslight something, build up a philosophy around it.



Yes, I'm not really involving science, I'm using materialism as the "belief" system.
materialism | Definition, Theories, History, & Facts

So back to my original question perhaps in a different form: What belief system do you use that does not involve materialism?

I use no belief system of what the world is as to what its metaphysical or ontological status is. I believe in one less thing than you.

To you all other metaphysics are in effect wrong. To me I have found that I don't need to believe in any of them..

 

[Nakosis]

Well, if he´wants magic, that is also physical. Why do you complain about humans being physical ás different than you? That your position is right and all other contradictory ones are wrong, is all physical.

I'm not complaining, I'm presenting what I've found to work in all cases. IOW, I see no need for a different methodology.
I'm looking for cases materialism can't be used.

 

[Nakosis]

I use no belief system of what the world is as to what its metaphysical or ontological status is. I believe in one less thing than you.

To you all other metaphysics are in effect wrong. To me I have found that I don't need to believe in any of them..

I'm not saying they are wrong, only that I can't see a need for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not complaining, I'm presenting what I've found to work in all cases. IOW, I see no need for a different methodology.
I'm looking for cases materialism can't be used.

You do understand that, what you need, is not an objective standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not saying they are wrong, only that I can't see a need for them.

You can't see a need. You can feel it.

 

[Nakosis]

You do understand that, what you need, is not an objective standard.

Depends on what you mean by objective. Materialism is about as unbiased as you can get. However if your are getting into philosophy again, the killer of all practicality, of course one cannot get around the fact of having a brain.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't see a need. You can feel it.

Try the second definition for the word see.
discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.
"I can't see any other way to treat it"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends on what you mean by objective. Materialism is about as unbiased as you can get. However if your are getting into philosophy again, the killer of all practicality, of course one cannot get around the fact of having a brain.

And you can't get around that my brain is not yours. Materialism, naturalism and biological evolution is what causes relativism or if you like subjectivism.
Now learn to live with it or become like some religious believer and in effect claim objective authority over all humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try the second definition for the word see.
discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.
"I can't see any other way to treat it"

Understand is not to see or verify through observation. I am in effect running you in circles, because if something can be done subjectively I just do it differently than you. I just don't test through observation. I also test through subjectivity.

 

[Nakosis]

Understand is not to see or verify through observation. I am in effect running you in circles, because if something can be done subjectively I just do it differently than you. I just don't test through observation. I also test through subjectivity.

So your feelings right? Subjectivity?

 

[Nakosis]

And you can't get around that my brain is not yours. Materialism, naturalism and biological evolution is what causes relativism or if you like subjectivism.
Now learn to live with it or become like some religious believer and in effect claim objective authority over all humans.

Yes, some profound philosophical point.
Philosophy likes running around in circles.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, some profound philosophical point.
Philosophy likes running around in circles.

That is a feeling too. You use them too. I just admit it. I can't use objectivity on everything. I also have to make subjectively sense of being me. And yes, that includes feelings.

 

[Secret Chief]

Ok, to me love is easily explainable as a physical process.

Are those who love you aware of this?

 

[Nakosis]

Are those who love you aware of this?

No, it's no usually the kind of thing they are interested in.
I don't see that knowing how it works lessens the experience any. It is what it is, our experience, whether we understand the physical process or not.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a feeling too. You use them too. I just admit it. I can't use objectivity on everything. I also have to make subjectively sense of being me. And yes, that includes feelings.

Sure, I also find I can control my feelings quite a bit. I find it allows one to be less subjective in their thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, I also find I can control my feelings quite a bit. I find it allows one to be less subjective in their thinking.

So that is good, right? That is a feeling BTW.

 

[Nakosis]

So that is good, right? That is a feeling BTW.

I agree in this case, right and wrong, good and bad are feelings.
Another belief I have, that humans are emotional junkies.