• 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!

Materialist philosophy explained

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
For those interested in materialism vs. Idealism here is a great video explaining materialism and its foregone conclusions and many assumptions.


It seems to me that you have to have a well thought out philosophy before you actually do science. Otherwise you do not know what you are looking for in order to prove the hypothesis.

Materialism is a philosophy and not proven out to be. But the philosophy of it is championed as strict science without being carefully questioned.

So where does the proof sit, and the evidence that bears out materialism?

It confounds me as to where the so called victory of materialism comes from.

Why does materialist philosophy become categorized as science when it is an under worked philosophy?

As an outside observer i am very much interested in where this all leads and all i have found was championed assumptions that materialism is fact.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
For those interested in materialism vs. Idealism here is a great video explaining materialism and its foregone conclusions and many assumptions.


It seems to me that you have to have a well thought out philosophy before you actually do science. Otherwise you do not know what you are looking for in order to prove the hypothesis.

Materialism is a philosophy and not proven out to be. But the philosophy of it is championed as strict science without being carefully questioned.

So where does the proof sit, and the evidence that bears out materialism?

It confounds me as to where the so called victory of materialism comes from.

Why does materialist philosophy become categorized as science when it is an under worked philosophy?

As an outside observer i am very much interested in where this all leads and all i have found was championed assumptions that materialism is fact.

It has led to understanding the physical universe. Hasn't done a lot so far for understanding consciousness.

Science depends on the ability to test and measure. Whatever can be measured is assumed to be physical. If consciousness could be measured then it would end up in the physical category anyway.

What can't be tested/measured, science doesn't work with. Science has to assume the physical nature of whatever it is testing.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It has led to understanding the physical universe. Hasn't done a lot so far for understanding consciousness.

Science depends on the ability to test and measure. Whatever can be measured is assumed to be physical. If consciousness could be measured then it would end up in the physical category anyway.

What can't be tested/measured, science doesn't work with. Science has to assume the physical nature of whatever it is testing.

It is not just consciousness. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
  1. Science doesn't make moral judgments
  2. Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
  3. Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
  4. Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
So are these parts of human life not a part of the the physical universe? Or are there other parts of reality, which are not part of the physical nature?
Is there a non-physical universe? Can something be natural, but not physical?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
It is not just consciousness. Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
  1. Science doesn't make moral judgments
  2. Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
  3. Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
  4. Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
So are these parts of human life not a part of the the physical universe? Or are there other parts of reality, which are not part of the physical nature?
Is there a non-physical universe? Can something be natural, but not physical?


What we perceive of reality is a controlled hallucination. We experience a prediction of reality created by our unconscious mind.

Sometimes that prediction is off. What we experience is not part of reality. In this oddity between unconscious prediction and what we consciously experience are hallucinations, uncontrolled (by external physical input) hallucinations that affect our experience.

Neurologically the experience is real. The unconscious mind uses the same mechanisms to create a hallucination that is controlled by external stimulus as it does when it is completely imagined.

The "non-physical" universe is the hallucination created by the unconscious mind which we experience as reality.

Judgements are based on your feelings. Feelings are physiological responses to your perceptions. How you use something like science is also based on your feelings. Some actions make you feel good, some make you feel bad. Feelings is blood pressure, body temperature, endorphins, physical responses.

Science may not have immediate responses to some of these questions but I feel :D we are getting closer to answers.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It has led to understanding the physical universe. Hasn't done a lot so far for understanding consciousness.

Science depends on the ability to test and measure. Whatever can be measured is assumed to be physical. If consciousness could be measured then it would end up in the physical category anyway.

What can't be tested/measured, science doesn't work with. Science has to assume the physical nature of whatever it is testing.
Oh I think you just hit upon the problem of consciousness.
What is the weight of the scale?
To do that you would need another scale, the scale can't weigh itself.

When it comes to consciousness there is no external independent way to measure it. If there was, well that would be far more interesting a topic.

Some modern monotheists have complete have whackos who "believes" there exists such a thing .they call it god. Not all them but a lot of them, they post here all the time.

In secular drag we now see some co-equally and just as deluded proclaiming we exist in a virtual reality. Same thing different name is all.

I could go one but you did sort of strike upon a problem for me that appears to be pandemic! I treat it as a mental disorder but it's common name is NORMAL.

Omg the world is overrun by normalacy we are doomed.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I could go one but you did sort of strike upon a problem for me that appears to be pandemic! I treat it as a mental disorder but it's common name is NORMAL.

Omg the world is overrun by normalacy we are doomed.

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup demonstrates with evidences how brain deficiency may reveal self transcendence.

http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf

Abstract

A broad pattern of correlations between mechanisms of brain function impairment and self-transcendence is shown. The pattern includes such mechanisms as cerebral hypoxia, physiological stress, transcranial magnetic stimulation, trance-induced physiological effects, the action of psychoactive substances and even physical trauma to the brain. In all these cases, subjects report self-transcending experiences often described as ‘mystical’ and ‘awareness-expanding,’ as well as self-transcending skills often described as ‘savant.’ The idea that these correlations could be rather trivially accounted for on the basis of disruptions to inhibitory neural processes is reviewed and shown to be implausible. Instead, this paper suggests that an as-of-yet unrecognized causal principle underlying the entire pattern might be at work, whose further elucidation through systematic research could hold great promise.
....

The same idea summarised in a Scientific American blog.

Transcending the Brain
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Making judgments on feelings solely is a bad way to go.

Judgments made on understandings is something all humans can do otherwise.

I know for instance that the people i care about is based on my understanding of them.

Feelings are highly sensitive to physical experience.

I would not call love a feeling. It to me is an understanding that i greatly value and care about. Feelings may be produced by the understanding but i would not call those feelings love.

When i reflect solely on positive understandings i tend to get positive feelings. And i value my understandings every bit as much as my feelings.

The understanding that is appreciated is my sense of love, not the feelings.

And that is my personal experience of that.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

What we perceive of reality is a controlled hallucination. We experience a prediction of reality created by our unconscious mind.

Sometimes that prediction is off. What we experience is not part of reality. In this oddity between unconscious prediction and what we consciously experience are hallucinations, uncontrolled (by external physical input) hallucinations that affect our experience.

Neurologically the experience is real. The unconscious mind uses the same mechanisms to create a hallucination that is controlled by external stimulus as it does when it is completely imagined.

The "non-physical" universe is the hallucination created by the unconscious mind which we experience as reality.

Judgements are based on your feelings. Feelings are physiological responses to your perceptions. How you use something like science is also based on your feelings. Some actions make you feel good, some make you feel bad. Feelings is blood pressure, body temperature, endorphins, physical responses.

Science may not have immediate responses to some of these questions but I feel :D we are getting closer to answers.

I dont operate on feelings unless i choose to. I operate on understandings that i can validate by experience, or often on understandings alone.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion

What we perceive of reality is a controlled hallucination. We experience a prediction of reality created by our unconscious mind.

Sometimes that prediction is off. What we experience is not part of reality. In this oddity between unconscious prediction and what we consciously experience are hallucinations, uncontrolled (by external physical input) hallucinations that affect our experience.

Neurologically the experience is real. The unconscious mind uses the same mechanisms to create a hallucination that is controlled by external stimulus as it does when it is completely imagined.

The "non-physical" universe is the hallucination created by the unconscious mind which we experience as reality.

You are in effect a dualist. If what we experience is not part of reality, then it takes place in non-reality, yet it is real, so non-reality is real. You operate with a "meta"-reality of reality and non-reality, hence a dualist. The problem is that the word "real" is a part of non-reality, because "real" is a hallucination itself. You only experience real as a hallucination.
For reality as a word: "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them"; that itself is an idea. The idea that there is something behind the hallucination or if you like the assumption that the hallucination corresponds to something independent of the hallucination and that independent "something" causes the hallucination. In philosophy that is "das Ding an sich". You can say that it is there, but that is all. The rest you say, is the hallucination of "das Ding an sich" and not "das Ding an sich" itself.

The paradox of physical/materialism is that you can't know if you are a Boltzmann brain or not, because the hallucination is the same both in a Boltzmann brain universe and the real universe/reality.
The world-view you hold, is a belief system, which requires faith in that there is a real universe/reality. I believe that too, I just know that it is a belief and it requires faith. It is the basis of the idea of evidence, but it has no evidence itself.
In other words reality control us and we are just along for the ride. Reality is a persistent hallucination, which appears to work and we trust it, but that doesn't make it so, that we know it is real.

Judgements are based on your feelings. Feelings are physiological responses to your perceptions. How you use something like science is also based on your feelings. Some actions make you feel good, some make you feel bad. Feelings is blood pressure, body temperature, endorphins, physical responses.

Science may not have immediate responses to some of these questions but I feel :D we are getting closer to answers.

As for ethics, aesthetics, utility and metaphysics science will never by able to answer that, IFF the universe/reality remains the same. All 4 are subjective and can't be done using science, because science requires objectivity.
Here it is for gravity and killing a human. Gravity is the same for all humans(objective), but whether killing another human is wrong, is subjective. You can't see, touch, smell, hear or feeling by touch wrong nor is there any scientific measurement of wrong possible, because there is no objective standard for calibrating an instrument to measure wrong. It has no objective referent and thus can't be evaluated using science.
That you believe it will be possible, contradicts what we know of the universe/reality and requires another universe/reality. It is the same as the claim that how gravity works, will change in future. If the universe is consistent over time (an assumption) then neither gravity nor the four categories of subjectivity will change.
There is nothing new in that - in western philosophy it goes back to in part Protagoras ""Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
All acts of measurement including metaphysics are subjective in part and the modern variant is cognitive relativism. There is no unified universal and objective scientific standard for all of reality as it appears to us, some parts are subjective and require feelings, beliefs, faith and are without evidence(science).

As a reductio ad absurdum the problem is e.g. that if everything is physical, then the answer "No!" is also physical and real, yet that is absurd. The words "physical" and "real" are if you look closer part of the hallucination. :D
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What can't be tested/measured, science doesn't work with. Science has to assume the physical nature of whatever it is testing.

That is okay. Science however does not presume that measurable is all that there is. In case of science, empiricism is a working assumption and not a definitive conclusion.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The philosophy of science, which is behind materialism, limits the investigation of reality, to only that which we all can agree, using external sensory input.

For example, say we were all camping, at night, in the woods. It is dark and scary for some. A rustling in the brush is thought, by some, to be a bear. While to others, the shadow near the tree looks like a wolf. The philosophy of science, as applied to collective observations in this camping trip, will limit itself to only those things that everyone at the camp site can agree. It will factor out the bear and the wolf, simply because we all cannot agree on these things. Not everyone sees these things for consensus verification.

If all cannot agree, it is called subjective. Subjective does not mean that the consciousness of a few, did not perceive this. It only means that everyone cannot agree on these things, for it to be considered objective consensus. This is the constraint of the philosophy of science; age of enlightenment. Reality was defined as that which we all can agree. This factors out religion, personal opinion, and even philosophy. For example, we can all agree on the sun, but we cannot all agree on the chariot of Helios, even if a few see the chariot.

This philosophical assumption was very useful to narrow down what we will look at. However, it is not complete, since it does not do justice to all phenomena, especially those connected to consciousness. This is why consciousness is the final frontier of science. The philosophy specifically factored out certain brain output.

As an example, say I related a dream in a lot of detail. On the one hand, we have all had dreams, and science knows dreams occur, so this is not out of the realm of reality. However, the details of my dream is not something that can be verified, or seen by anyone else. It can be real and objective, but only to an audience of one. It can never reach the level of an objective sensory consensus, even if real and tangible in some brain output way. The philosophy of science factors out that which is not sensory consensus thereby mislabeling sound observation, as subjective.

Conceptually, way into the future, we will be able to video broadcast live dreams on a screen so all can see and verify, to satisfy the philosophy of science. But for now, this is called subjective at worse and soft science at best. The materialists philosophy and the philosophy of science were not designed to go certain places, without technology. It own limits and philosophy can cause it to deny some areas of reality, connected to output from the very tool, used to observed all material things; consciousness.

The main tool of science; consciousness, is not considered consensus objective, since we do not have a way to form an object consensus; no consensus definition. If consciousness is the main tool of science, and we cannot define consciousness in a way to make it an objective consensus observation; philosophy, how do we know if the consciousness tool, is properly calibrated, for use as the foundation of objectivity? A collective biased can exist, in the tool, that we are not aware of.

Theory, for example, can bias how we look at things and thereby created a conditioned consensus; sensory expectation. For example, at one time the earth was assumed flat. Once this premiss was taught and accepted, it would create its own reality. The consciousness tool was not properly calibrated, allowing the bias to become consensus and systematic. The lack of calibration was induced by a collective day dream, and a prestige affect. It was also induced by science not dealing with consciousness affects.

The final frontier of science; consciousness, will need to be addressed, or science can never know if the main tool of science is properly calibrated. Are we defining reality as it is, or are we day dreaming it, as we wish it to be. Science, evolves over time; past daydreams into new ones. The philosophy of science, as is, is designed to ignore this calibration, since unconscious exploration needed will result in unique subjective data that has to be pieced together, to indirectly infer objective consensus of a calibration standard.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
You are in effect a dualist.

Sure the dual mind as I see it is the conscious part of the mind and the unconscious part.

As a reductio ad absurdum the problem is e.g. that if everything is physical, then the answer "No!" is also physical and real, yet that is absurd. The words "physical" and "real" are if you look closer part of the hallucination. :D

My view is that regardless of actuality, we still have to deal with our reality as it presents itself via the unconscious mind. We certainly can't ignore its apparent reality as a matter of survival.

There is a lot of this actuality we can't even sense. Our sight is limited, hearing, all of our senses have limitation. Who knows how much exists which is beyond our perception.

Still we can't know what we can't know, I think it best to stick with what we can know. Anything else one cares to believe about reality is a crapshoot.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sure the dual mind as I see it is the conscious part of the mind and the unconscious part.



My view is that regardless of actuality, we still have to deal with our reality as it presents itself via the unconscious mind. We certainly can't ignore its apparent reality as a matter of survival.

There is a lot of this actuality we can't even sense. Our sight is limited, hearing, all of our senses have limitation. Who knows how much exists which is beyond our perception.

Still we can't know what we can't know, I think it best to stick with what we can know. Anything else one cares to believe about reality is a crapshoot.

First off, there is no we in reality. Even within a natural and scientific approach there is no we, when it comes to morality, aesthetics, utility and a strong positive metaphysical position. Further to the bold part there is no one universal all the same unconscious mind for all of reality.
Now back to we, in practice there is no we in evolution because competition for resources and reproduction also takes place within the human species and there is no need for all humans to survive, reproduce and have a good life for the survival of the human species. And even further there is some fuzziness with it comes to some aspects of reality. E.g. take 3 atheists, 2 of them are functional moral realists when it comes to political ideologies though they hold contradictory views and the 3rd one is a functional anti-realist when it comes to morality/ethics including political ideologies. Only one of them can be correct as a true representation of reality, yet all 3 can live long good enough lives and what not.

Now in short you are like most people because you take apparently for granted that there is a we in reality. There is not and there is no we in survival in the strong universal and objective sense.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
First off, there is no we in reality. Even within a natural and scientific approach there is no we, when it comes to morality, aesthetics, utility and a strong positive metaphysical position. Further to the bold part there is no one universal all the same unconscious mind for all of reality.
Now back to we, in practice there is no we in evolution because competition for resources and reproduction also takes place within the human species and there is no need for all humans to survive, reproduce and have a good life for the survival of the human species. And even further there is some fuzziness with it comes to some aspects of reality. E.g. take 3 atheists, 2 of them are functional moral realists when it comes to political ideologies though they hold contradictory views and the 3rd one is a functional anti-realist when it comes to morality/ethics including political ideologies. Only one of them can be correct as a true representation of reality, yet all 3 can live long good enough lives and what not.

Fine as a theory, but not very practical. For some reason, my wife keeps on insisting she exists. I got to keep putting the toilet seat down, otherwise face the consequences.

Now in short you are like most people because you take apparently for granted that there is a we in reality. There is not and there is no we in survival in the strong universal and objective sense.

Guilty, it's not my diapers I be a changing. So I assume there exists another entity (my grandson) putting the poop in there. My bad.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Fine as a theory, but not very practical. For some reason, my wife keeps on insisting she exists. I got to keep putting the toilet seat down, otherwise face the consequences.



Guilty, it's not my diapers I be a changing. So I assume there exists another entity (my grandson) putting the poop in there. My bad.

What does your wife and grandson have to do with the we you used for survival. She is not my wife and your grandson is not mine. You switch between a general universal we for all of humanity and survival and go down to the individual level. I don't have to survive for you to survive and in reverse. Indeed sometimes survival comes down to who lives and dies. There is no strong universal we in survival in the same sense as gravity is common to all humans.
Indeed there would be a reality without humans, right?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What does your wife and grandson have to do with the we you used for survival. She is not my wife and your grandson is not mine. You switch between a general universal we for all of humanity and survival and go down to the individual level. I don't have to survive for you to survive and in reverse. Indeed sometimes survival comes down to who lives and dies. There is no strong universal we in survival in the same sense as gravity is common to all humans.
Indeed there would be a reality without humans, right?

Just pointing out that my immediate environment is the extent of my we.

You can imagine a reality without humans, you can imagine any reality you want. However it is not real. Reality does have humans in it, I don't see it as being very useful to imagine a reality that doesn't actually exist except maybe to entertain oneself.
 
Top