Are all sceptics materialists?

[AdamSK]

Hi Susan: The Adversary was quoting Dick Swaab in saying "we are our brains" in the original Dutch. Swaab has written a book by that title. Again, it's all a matter of mind-brain reductionism.

 

[TheAdversary]

Again, it's all a matter of mind-brain reductionism.

I think that ultimately the reason academics reject theories that have more evidence going for them in favour of Multiverses or Computer Simulations
is really because of this. A bias towards 'the mind is the brain'. This position has more evidence going for it than Cartesian Dualism, so it should be
initially accepted over this but this position is now running into trouble because the metaphysical theories implied by it turn out to have less evidence than
the non-reductionistic ones that we have known historically as 'Religions'.
So, while the evidence from Neuroscience strongly favours a reductionistic position, the fact that the resulting metaphysical theories become less evidence-based
than, for example, Islam, which at least has some evidence going for it due to it being an unlikely occurrence, means that the reductionistic position,
the Neuroscientific consensus position, can be effectively challenged.

 

[MikeG]

I think that ultimately the reason academics reject theories that have more evidence going for them in favour of Multiverses or Computer Simulations.......

How many times do we have to do this?

Please tell us one academic, just one, who has offered unequivocal support for either of these theories. If you can't, do you think you could trouble yourself to stop repeating the same bollocks over and over again? It isn't us that looks foolish when this happens.

 

[AdamSK]

I think that ultimately the reason academics reject theories that have more evidence going for them in favour of Multiverses or Computer Simulations is really because of this.

As many others have pointed out, you have not established that this has actually happened.

The theories that you claim "have more evidence going for them," you refuse to provide evidence for, and refuse to answer any questions about.

Nor do you even provide support for your contention that any theories are being rejected in favor of MWI. Those supporting the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics will pretty much universally acknowledge it's a hypothesis, not an established theory, and more evidence is needed. Others have already pointed this out to you. You don't respond; you ignore them.

 

[AdamSK]

And I ask again:

In what year did Mohammed conquer the entire Middle East by himself?

 

[MikeG]

........A bias towards 'the mind is the brain'.........

Here we go again.......

Give us one academic, just one, who supports this notion unequivocally.

This is a straw man. You posit tosh and then use it to try to make science look silly. It may work elsewhere, but you won't get away with that tactic here. There is a very great deal of difference between "the mind is the brain" and "the mind is an emergent property of the brain".

 

[SusanB-M1]

Hi Susan: The Adversary was quoting Dick Swaab in saying "we are our brains" in the original Dutch. Swaab has written a book by that title. Again, it's all a matter of mind-brain reductionism.

Thank you! Interestingly, Dolphin SuperNova latest software update patch has a facility for the voice to read things in the language they are written in, but I haven't added it yet. Also I doubt whether I'd use it much.

 

[AdamSK]

Thank you! Interestingly, Dolphin SuperNova latest software update patch has a facility for the voice to read things in the language they are written in, but I haven't added it yet. Also I doubt whether I'd use it much.

Yeah, unless you speak the other language that doesn't seem like a very valuable feature. Better to have something that identifies the foreign text and provides the option to translate it, like several Google services do.

 

[MikeG]

....... less evidence-based than, for example, Islam.......

Apples and fish, remember?

Islam is not a scientific theory, and has none of its own. There is therefore no basis whatever for comparing Islam with science. Can you actually say anything at all without being wrong?

 

[TheAdversary]

Ok, to make it clear : I know they're unproven hypothesises. And so is 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger'.
Both are unproven. I know this.
But ... they're not equal in evidence due to the fact that Mohammed really did something extraordinary.
And so, ... even though the evidence for Islam is not as strong as that for QM, it's still evidence. More than that for the other 'unproven' hypothesises.
And evidence is _never_ certain, not even that for QM. So the argument is valid, unless you require _absolute_ certainty but that's beyond the scope
of the Scientific Method.

Give us one academic, just one, who supports this notion unequivocally.

https://debunkingdenialism.com/

Especially the articles dealing with anti-psychiatry. Also, look at his articles on Philosophy and his desire to remove Philosophy from
academia on account of its unscientific nature. Non-Materialism is unscientific to him.

 

[AdamSK]

In... what... YEAR... did Mohammed conquer the Middle East by himself?

 

[MikeG]

......https://debunkingdenialism.com/........

You mean this bit:

The Triumph of the Peppered Moths and the Failure of Creationism

Or this bit:

Coop Sued For Misleading “The Organic Effect” Marketing Campaign

Seriously, you've got to do better than that.

 

[TheAdversary]

In... what... YEAR... did Mohammed conquer the Middle East by himself?

Mohammed did something extraordinary. According to the tradition, around 610 Archangel Gabriel spoke to him and told him what he needed to do.
Of course he didn't do everything by himself, he acquired followers and built an army. It was a whole development.
Slowly but surely, the Pagans that had different Religions were converted to Islam. The result of this was, eventually, a Golden Age.
Explainable by anthropology? Sure, but it's a stretch. Evidence for the Occult? Maybe. But at least, and that's my point, it's evidence.
No evidence is ever perfect, so this counts as evidence. It just depends on what you compare it to. The Gold Standard is QM, the lowest would be
Computer Simulations. Islam fits somewhere in between ...

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I never said that a Religion needs to be 'correct' to stabilize a society. I don't believe that any idea, even very rigorous ones like QM,
can ever be correct. It's a Thelemic doctrine that it's not possible to teach anything but falsehoods, only that some ideas are less wrong than others.
And sometimes, mankind just needs a 'correct lie' to progress further. Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained' is another example of such an idea.



Nonsense. I get this :

Originally Posted by TheAdversary
Essentially, Materialism is the denial of Free Will.

is not a helpful definition.

I also already said that 'Wij zijn ons brein'-'We are our brain' by Dick Swaab is a good definition of Materialism.

Look, kid, if you can't define your terms you shouldn't be leaning on them so hard.

Your "definitions" above are not definitions. You have not provided a working definition. I may or may not be a Materialist, I have no idea because you haven't given me enough information.

I suspect you don't actually understand Materialism beyond two paragraphs in a spiral notebook from Philosophy101. You did take notes in class, I hope? If not, next year try it.

 

[TheAdversary]

I think QM trumps Relativity in evidence because Master Einstein tried to falsify it ... and failed.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

https://debunkingdenialism.com/

Especially the articles dealing with anti-psychiatry. Also, look at his articles on Philosophy and his desire to remove Philosophy from
academia on account of its unscientific nature. Non-Materialism is unscientific to him.

That's a blog.
The writer, Emil Karlsson, does not list any academic credentials.

 

[TheAdversary]

Seriously, you've got to do better than that.

I specifically told you what articles to look for. Look at the articles and following discussions on Philosophy and anti-Psychiatry.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Look, kid, if you can't define your terms you shouldn't be leaning on them so hard.

What's your age, actually? Me, I'm 38. I have defined my terms; AdamSK cleared it up, also.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Except that those writers didn't end up conquering the entire Middle East by themselves and stabilizing a society that our society now even depends on. This is unlikely enough, to consider a supernatural explanation. It's not at the level of certainty of QM or Relativity though. I wouldn't claim that.



There is not a single shred of evidence for computer simulation. Islam's claim of Divinity trumps computer simulation in evidence. So the reason to prefer
computer simulation can't be evidence-based. In fact, if you're seeking evidence for magical programmers, you could listen to Mohammed, even.
Maybe he was contacted by a magical computer programmer who told him what to do. See that the position of the Materialists is becoming absurd?

You get that no amount of you saying this will actually make it true, right?

Mohammed did not conquer anything by himself. He gathered followers and acted as leader for a movement comprising thousands of supporters, advisors and soldiers. Those thousands of followers were essential to conquering things. This organization and movement then became the dominant one in an area, controlling large portions of land in the area. This is not only NOT supernatural, this has been a common event in civilizations all over the world throughout all of recorded history.

 

[MikeG]

I specifically told you what articles to look for. Look at the articles and following discussions on Philosophy and anti-Psychiatry.

And I specifically asked for the name of an academic who unequivocally supports the notion that "the mind is the brain". I didn't ask for links to someone's blog.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

No. Do you? That'll be "the name of an academic who unequivocally supports the notion that the mind is the brain", to save you looking it up again. I didn't ask for a link to a blog.

 

[gypsyjackson]

Apples and fish, remember?

Islam is not a scientific theory, and has none of its own. There is therefore no basis whatever for comparing Islam with science. Can you actually say anything at all without being wrong?

Here in Malaysia we have a university of Islamic science. No idea what that means, but I suspect adding a qualifier is indicative.