What's wrong with Materialism?

[idav]

Not 'electrical frequencies' as such, but bioelectrical intensities (stronger / weaker) in the interconnections.

I can go with that.

 

[George-ananda]

(In my view, for the article to have any value, the authors were bound to satisfy themselves in advance about the credentials of the experimenters, the sufficiency of the experimental protocols, and the precise application of the protocols to the experiments ─ but instead they took the papers at face value, thus uncritically adopting the assumptions of the experimenters. Those points are where parapsychology claims repeatedly fall down,)

I saw a lecture by Dr. Dean Radin refuting those points above describing protocols and results and repeatability and I have to believe he is more familiar with this subject than you and me. I have to believe these people know what they are doing. Performing this experiment is not hard.

But anyway, there is no point in us discussing this further. I respect the credibility of the people involved with this and I am sure we won't agree on that.

 

[blü 2]

I saw a lecture by Dr. Dean Radin refuting those points above describing protocols and results and repeatability and I have to believe he is more familiar with this subject than you and me. I have to believe these people know what they are doing. Performing this experiment is not hard.

But anyway, there is no point in us discussing this further. I respect the credibility of the people involved with this and I am sure we won't agree on that.

The gulf between us is a demonstration sufficient to convert the unconverted.

I don't think parapsychology is an aspect of reality, rather of psychology.

But I'm not fixed in my views, in the sense that such a demonstration, some repeatable experiments, can persuade me. It's just that they don't seem to be there.

And if they were, it'd be front page news around the world.

 

[sayak83]

My own conclusion after looking at the subjective / objective question, originally in considering Platonism in mathematics, which holds that numbers (1, 2, 3, ... π ... i ...) have an objective existence but can't say how. Numbers are instead concepts, more particularly abstractions, which is why you never encounter an uninstantiated 2 out there.

And consider how humans use eg twoness: before you can count, you must make a selection of the particular things to be counted, and the field in which the counting is to be done: "there are two peas (selection and definition of what is to be counted, exclusion of other things) on my plate (definition of field)". That process is innate in every counting. In the absence of a brain, no concepts of two, pea, plate are available, and nature is continuous, not self-dividing into defined categories or fields in this way.

We've evolved to interpret our sensory input in ways useful to our survival and breeding. It's an error to overlook the interpreting we automatically, unconsciously, constantly do. Not just beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's still unclear to me whether the statement "earth is 4.5 billion years old." is a coherent or incoherent statement in your paradigm.

 

[blü 2]

It's still unclear to me whether the statement "earth is 4.5 billion years old." is a coherent or incoherent statement in your paradigm.

It's a fully coherent statement because it makes verifiable sense to humans ie to brains which contain the relevant concepts.

The statement can't exist without such brains. It has no independent existence.

 

[sayak83]

It's a fully coherent statement because it makes verifiable sense to humans ie to brains which contain the relevant concepts.

The statement can't exist without such brains. It has no independent existence.

Does the statement refers to any actual state of affairs about the world or not? Or, is only making sense to human brains, the sole criteria?

 

[blü 2]

Does the statement refers to any actual state of affairs about the world or not?

Yes. We humans receive sensory input about the external world, and we interpret it, first, by the set of instincts we get from our genes, such as the ability to learn language, to develop concepts, including abstractions and generalizations, to reason, and so on, and second through education and experience.

We explore the external world most particularly through science, which endeavors to maximize objectivity. But we necessarily do this in human terms, that is, in terms of what seems important to us. We like to measure, quantify, analyze, in order to understand. To do this we develop a lot of related concepts ─ the expressions of geometry, arithmetic, stats, the names of things and processes in physics, chemistry and biochemistry, and so on.

And in this way we derive true statements, that's to say, statements about reality that represent the best opinion of our time, and which we can verify by the standards of verification of our time.

But truth isn't fixed. It changes as we learn. Most of the ancient world knew that the earth was flat and that the sun and stars went around it, and that, being the best opinion, was then true. Up to the end of 19th century we knew, so it was true, that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, and after Michelson and Morley, it wasn't true. Until Einstein, what Newton thought was right was true, that gravity was a force and acted instantly; and afterwards it wasn't true.

But if we're not around, then there's no concept that this aggregation of hadrons that we're standing on is the sum of its ingredients and forms a planet; there is no one to say, this is a red rock and this is another red rock next to it, that's two red rocks, and so on. All these analyses require us to choose a field of reference, select for our own view of relevance, and describe it in concepts that we've developed for the purpose (like mass, volume, ratio, centimeter, distance, hour, speed, and so on). Take away us and our concepts, which suit us and serve us, and the world is still out there but no one's around to say what's relevant, what's important, what a vegetable is, and so on.

We impose a view on the world by analyzing it. It's not wrong because we can verify it (and I add without irony, just as the ancients could verify that the world was flat) and it works, and we can put landers on Mars and exchange signals with them.

But nowhere are there absolutes, ultimate statements, perfect perceptions. It's always a work in progress. And if, as I hope, there are still humans in a thousand years' time, living in informed civilizations, they'll think of us as we think of the 11th century (William the Conqueror and all that), full of mistaken perceptions and weird ideas, but faithful to the basics of friendship, family and society. Or not, of course.

And none of it can be judged ultimately valid, except in human terms, which are all we have, and which work well for us, and with which we can say, there are two peas on my plate.

(Sorry, that's an untidy effort. I should come back some time and make it shorter and less repetitious, but right now it's easier to write this postscript.)

 

[sayak83]

Yes. We humans receive sensory input about the external world, and we interpret it, first, by the set of instincts we get from our genes, such as the ability to learn language, to develop concepts, including abstractions and generalizations, to reason, and so on, and second through education and experience.

We explore the external world most particularly through science, which endeavors to maximize objectivity. But we necessarily do this in human terms, that is, in terms of what seems important to us. We like to measure, quantify, analyze, in order to understand. To do this we develop a lot of related concepts ─ the expressions of geometry, arithmetic, stats, the names of things and processes in physics, chemistry and biochemistry, and so on.

And in this way we derive true statements, that's to say, statements about reality that represent the best opinion of our time, and which we can verify by the standards of verification of our time.

But truth isn't fixed. It changes as we learn. Most of the ancient world knew that the earth was flat and that the sun and stars went around it, and that, being the best opinion, was then true. Up to the end of 19th century we knew, so it was true, that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, and after Michelson and Morley, it wasn't true. Until Einstein, what Newton thought was right was true, that gravity was a force and acted instantly; and afterwards it wasn't true.

But if we're not around, then there's no concept that this aggregation of hadrons that we're standing on is the sum of its ingredients and forms a planet; there is no one to say, this is a red rock and this is another red rock next to it, that's two red rocks, and so on. All these analyses require us to choose a field of reference, select for our own view of relevance, and describe it in concepts that we've developed for the purpose (like mass, volume, ratio, centimeter, distance, hour, speed, and so on). Take away us and our concepts, which suit us and serve us, and the world is still out there but no one's around to say what's relevant, what's important, what a vegetable is, and so on.

We impose a view on the world by analyzing it. It's not wrong because we can verify it (and I add without irony, just as the ancients could verify that the world was flat) and it works, and we can put landers on Mars and exchange signals with them.

But nowhere are there absolutes, ultimate statements, perfect perceptions. It's always a work in progress. And if, as I hope, there are still humans in a thousand years' time, living in informed civilizations, they'll think of us as we think of the 11th century (William the Conqueror and all that), full of mistaken perceptions and weird ideas, but faithful to the basics of friendship, family and society. Or not, of course.

And none of it can be judged ultimately valid, except in human terms, which are all we have, and which work well for us, and with which we can say, there are two peas on my plate.

(Sorry, that's an untidy effort. I should come back some time and make it shorter and less repetitious, but right now it's easier to write this postscript.)

In my opinion the methods of science are incompatible with such a radically relativistic and subjectivist perspective. I believe that in science it's necessary to presume that there is a reality out there with real features and properties that are truly represented in our sensory modes, even if incompletely and sometimes distorted by our biases. Science represents the effort to completely represent the true reality and its true features in which we are immersed by extended our sense experiences through intensive investigations and careful analysis of those experiences using rationality, testing etc. Thus scientific progress involves a quantum increase in the degree of completion in the faithful representation of the true reality around and about us.

There is overwhelming consensus in science that this is what is happening even if there is debate at the level at which the correspondence holds for a particular scientific field.

I would object to you using materialism to describe your POV, as materialism requires a minimum commitment that matter with its properties and interrelationships exist independent of human concepts and are truly knowable, even if incompletely, by us.

 

[blü 2]

In my opinion the methods of science are incompatible with such a radically relativistic and subjectivist perspective. I believe that in science it's necessary to presume that there is a reality out there with real features and properties that are truly represented in our sensory modes, even if incompletely and sometimes distorted by our biases.

Nothing stops us from presuming that a world exists external to the self, and that our senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool for understanding; and this is where I start.

The physical sciences, which by my definition are the information frame of materialism, are a human pursuit, using the best tools we humans have to form the best views of reality we humans can. I don't think the hunt is in vain either; the more we learn, the more we can learn, and since, as I said in the OP, the question What's true in reality? is primary with me, I think that's valuable.

But I'm simultaneously aware of the questions that subjectivity and objectivity throw up, and they add an extra dimension to what science already acknowledges, that all conclusions of science are tentative.

So for me these ideas aren't incompatible, but integrated into my worldview. As I said, despite awareness of the limitations of science and the questions of subjectivity, what we know is true for the time being, and verifiably so, hence not trivial, or irrelevant, or ultimately
worthless, but steps to better understanding.

 

[oldbadger]

You need to read the introductory post, and not just the title:

*......yawn....*

Spiritual values do not translate to spiritualism, mediums nor healers.

So now we'll find out what you think that spiritualism is.......

I believe spiritual values, morals and ethics are universally innate in all of humanity regardless of what we profess we believe.

I believe that the evolution of human spiritual, moral, and ethical values is in herent in all humanity since the first human.[/QUOTE]
Errr?
Spiritual = of the spirit.
Morals = standards of behaviour.
Ethics = moral principles.

And so now you just need to show how 'spiritual' has any connection to morals.... or ethics. If you cannlot describe spiritual then it's probably just a religious 'it' word.

Now many early cultures knew the word more inimately than you, because they believed that creatures, animals and birds had spirits...... that does make sense, but you don't believe in spirits, surely, because you don't believe in mediums. It's 'word salad'!

And all this to prove 'what'?
I simply replied to OP that I have fouind that the less I possessso the more comfotable, happy and secure I feel, for some reason. That's about materialism of a sort.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you reject materialism, why?

My personal experiences dictate that there is more to existence than only entities processes that are recognized by physics in objective existence. I addition to this, I take exception to the majority of materialists being closed-minded about alternatives to materialism.

 

[blü 2]

I take exception to the majority of materialists being closed-minded about alternatives to materialism.

What alternatives?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What alternatives?

Spirituality in general. The idea that a greater existence lies beyond temporal reality.

 

[ArtMinded]

I doubt materialism is correct. One reason I say this is because of research into psychic phenomena. I agree with george-ananda on this one. I recommend looking into more on this than just what you hear in school or from skeptics. For example, look at research done at places like the Institute of Noetic Sciences, the Society for Psychical Research, the Rhine Research Center, etc. You can also check out books by Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Russel Targ, Lawernce LeShan, Rupert Sheldrake, among others. There is a lot of experimental evidence for psi. Also, I consider anecdotal evidence to be a valid form of evidence. Also, saying that something must not exist or must not be correct because there is no evidence for its existence is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Saying that psi does not exist because there is no evidence for its existence has two problems: 1) This argument commits the appeal to ignorance fallacy and 2) there actually is evidence for psi.

I also think there is probably more than just what science talks about or can address. I think it is perfectly possible for supernatural entities to exist and for supernatural explanations to be correct. Saying that something must not exist because it is outside the bounds of science would commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, Alfred North Whitehead's term for confusing an abstraction with reality.

 

[ArtMinded]

I thought of another reason why materialism is probably not correct. This is mental imagery where you can picture things in your head, so to speak (maybe technically not your head). Since there's no light inside your head, what's producing these images? This seems like strong evidence for the mind being nonphysical to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I thought of another reason why materialism is probably not correct. This is mental imagery where you can picture things in your head, so to speak (maybe technically not your head). Since there's no light inside your head, what's producing these images? This seems like strong evidence for the mind being nonphysical to me.

There's no light inside the processor or 'brain' of a digital camera either, and yet it can take light information, store it in encoded data, edit it and replay it internally, just like our brains.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I reject materialism as wrong from the mountain of paranormal experiences that I believe beyond reasonable doubt shows materialism to be a dramatically incomplete understanding of existence.

This just tells me that there may be a lot of different ways in which matter interacts with the universe...ways we don't understand. Obviously the experiences with ghosts show that they too can interact in some way with us. That requires some manner of physics. I believe there are natural unknowns. I don't believe in anything "beyond nature". If ghosts actually do exist, then there must be some natural, physical reason why they exist. Therefore I don't see materialism as wrong at all, even if ghosts were to somehow actually exist. Materialism is incomplete, that's all. Despite materialism being incomplete, I do believe it is the most accurate understanding of existence for everything in the universe is composed of physical, material "stuff" ie: energy, or interactive forces.

Just to clarify... By "materialism" I am referring specifically to matter and physical existence, not some philosophical interpretation of materialism.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I thought of another reason why materialism is probably not correct. This is mental imagery where you can picture things in your head, so to speak (maybe technically not your head). Since there's no light inside your head, what's producing these images? This seems like strong evidence for the mind being nonphysical to me.

Light is electromagnetism which is most definitely present in some form inside your brain.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I doubt materialism is correct. One reason I say this is because of research into psychic phenomena. I agree with george-ananda on this one. I recommend looking into more on this than just what you hear in school or from skeptics. For example, look at research done at places like the Institute of Noetic Sciences, the Society for Psychical Research, the Rhine Research Center, etc. You can also check out books by Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Russel Targ, Lawernce LeShan, Rupert Sheldrake, among others. There is a lot of experimental evidence for psi. Also, I consider anecdotal evidence to be a valid form of evidence. Also, saying that something must not exist or must not be correct because there is no evidence for its existence is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Saying that psi does not exist because there is no evidence for its existence has two problems: 1) This argument commits the appeal to ignorance fallacy and 2) there actually is evidence for psi.

I also think there is probably more than just what science talks about or can address. I think it is perfectly possible for supernatural entities to exist and for supernatural explanations to be correct. Saying that something must not exist because it is outside the bounds of science would commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, Alfred North Whitehead's term for confusing an abstraction with reality.

Why call anything "supernatural"? Perhaps there are certain beings, or entities, or even ghosts that might actually exist out there. If they do actually exist, then they are not "supernatural", they are not beyond this natural existence, they are merely naturally existing unknowns. Natural, physical, materially existing, but still unknown or unexplained.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Pleasure and salvation are spirits.