• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

"Therefore you're a hypocrite for telling me my woo isn't true." It's that. It's always that. It was that last time. It will be that next time. The same "I'm so intellectually insecure about being wrong about one thing that I'm going to scorch the entire intellectual earth of the entire concept of knowledge" crap it literally always is.
It's more than that though. The real insecurity goes right to the heart of their psyche - of whether their feelings are valid, their thoughts true, and their worldview accurate. The idea that it might all be an illusion is unthinkable, therefore the deep-seated need to refute it.

If the mind is just a result of atoms interacting blindly then how can you trust yourself? The answer of course is - you can't. You look at something and 'see' red, but all you are seeing is light bouncing off an object and stimulating nerves in your eye. Then the brain interprets that signal as the color red, even when an instrument might show it isn't. Everybody has seen those optical illusions showing colors that aren't there, and the science behind why we see them is well understood. But the truth is, everything we 'see' is an illusion.

Our visual system doesn't work like a camera, accurately capturing an entire scene exactly as imaged. Instead, we build up a 3 dimensional 'picture' in our minds based on the color and brightness variations around the edges of objects. Then those attributes are referenced to what we know about them from past experience - the curves and angles, textures and patterns, even the materials they are made of. Finally we replace them with our memory of what they represent. You look at a red apple and not only can you 'see' the apple, you can feel, smell, and taste it - all from memory.

That picture we build up in our minds is useful, but it isn't real. In reality the apple might be made of white wax, illuminated with a red light to make it look like a real apple. Without biting into that 'apple' we don't know if it really exists - but we think we do. And the idea that our perceptions are not 'true' is unacceptable. How could we live without it? We can't. But we can use science to show us a truer reality that exists beyond the fantasies in our minds - if we let it.

It's hard to get past the feeling that our perceptions are the reality, and many people just can't do it. But even those of us who can don't most of the time. Even if we know they aren't 'real', we trust our feelings because they help us get through life. That's the way the brain works, so it makes sense to go with it. For most people, most of the time, that is enough. We just need to realize that there are situations where it isn't.
 
Last edited:
The claim by the Physicalist "I am my physical brain/body" is strenuous. First one has to abstract a physical reality outside experience, a reality devoid of any mental precepts. Then, claim that I am an emergent property of this abstraction. I am an emergent property of a physical world I can only imagine.

Yea, like thad made sense. :rolleyes:

Out of curiosity. Do you know of anything that isn't physical or a result of something that isn't physical? Anything? Anything? Anything? Bueller?
 
Last edited:
Not all naturalistic or materialistic theories have been proven. Devhdb is right about that. And yet not a single non-materialist or non-naturalist theory has ever been proven. That says a lot.

Science has never ever proved anything outside the realm of mathematics (which is not science).

That says a lot (about you).

Try harder.

:(
 
Yea, like thad made sense. :rolleyes:

Out of curiosity. Do you know of anything that isn't physical or a result of something that isn't physical? Anything? Anything? Anything? Bueller?

Like yourself, everything I know and experience is a mental state. I, like yourself, can postulate a physical realm 'out there' that modulates my experience - but I can't know it is there.
 
The claim by the Physicalist "I am my physical brain/body" is strenuous. First one has to abstract a physical reality outside experience, a reality devoid of any mental precepts. Then, claim that I am an emergent property of this abstraction. I am an emergent property of a physical world I can only imagine.
It is 'strenuous' only to a mind which knows it exists independently of the physical world. But in reality it doesn't know, it only thinks it knows. Ask it how it knows and you will not get a coherent answer, only 'feelings'.

That a physical reality exists outside the mind is obvious. Once the basics of that reality have been determined, building on it to show how the mind emerges from atoms is 'easy' - that is to say 'just' a matter of doing the calculations. With a powerful enough computer you could do it with the push of a button. Contrast that with the contortions a mind must go through to argue that it isn't an emergent property of the brain.
 
Last edited:
Science has never ever proved anything outside the realm of mathematics (which is not science).

That says a lot (about you).

Try harder.

:(

Really? :rolleyes:

Science can demonstrate over and over again infinitum and without a known excepetion properties like amperage, voltage and resistance. Science shows us how to move trillions of electrons through different elements. And how to move an almost infinite number of photons through glass fibers smaller than a human hair at 15 different wavelengths allowing us to move huge volumes of information around the planet at close to light speeds. Science can tell us the neutron counts of every known element. In fact science predicted specific elements and then discovered them. It showed and demonstrated how noble gases don't combine with any other element. How when we combine certain elements together we can create entire new materials. How we can create vehicles that can travel at supersonic speeds around the planet. How by positioning satellites around the planet and triangulating radio signals down to nanoseconds we can tell precisely where on the planet you are down to feet. Science can tell us when a solar eclipse occurs at a given place on earth down to the second.

I could go on and on. Now tell me and prove anything "supernatural', metaphysical' or isn't the result of something physical.

When you can, get back to us.
 
Science has never ever proved anything outside the realm of mathematics (which is not science).
Science doesn't deal in proofs. But it does deal in reality.

You can 'prove' something with mathematics, but that doesn't make it real. Similarly with philosophy. For something to be real it doesn't just need the support of math and logic, it needs evidence. And the evidence says our minds are an emergent property of the atoms in our brains. You can't prove that is false, because evidence of things that actually exist trumps proof of things that only might be (if the evidence didn't say otherwise).
 
Last edited:
Like yourself, everything I know and experience is a mental state. I, like yourself, can postulate a physical realm 'out there' that modulates my experience - but I can't know it is there.

You think carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, helium, neon, xeon, iron, uranium, thorium, calcium, titanium, aluminium, bismuth, boron, cobalt or any of the other elements are merely mental states?

You think electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos are just mental states?

Sure.:rolleyes:
 
Science doesn't deal in proofs. But it does deal in reality.

You can 'prove' something with mathematics, but that doesn't make it real. Similarly with philosophy. For something to be real it doesn't just need the support of math and logic, it needs evidence. And the evidence says our minds are an emergent property of the atoms in our brains. You can't prove that is false, because evidence of things that actually exist trumps proof of things that only might be (if the evidence didn't say otherwise).

:thumbsup: People are playing with words. Proof is a math word, not a general science word. But that doesn't mean that science doesn't produce dependable repeatable results. So dependable that it has created a modern world that would look like magic two hundred years ago. I'm sitting here using a tablet computer that is millions of times more powerful than the computer on the spacecraft that carried men to the moon.

This is because of science, not because of some imaginary sky fairy.
 
Last edited:
You think carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, helium, neon, xeon, iron, uranium, thorium, calcium, titanium, aluminium, bismuth, boron, cobalt or any of the other elements are merely mental states?

You think electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos are just mental states?

Sure.:rolleyes:

We all live as there is an objective correlate to subjectivity. The Materialist claim is that only objectivity exists. Materialism is an abstract philosophy that no one could actually live - no one lives as though their subjective inner life is merely a mechanical appearance of a brain, and consciousness is an illusion.
 
We all live as there is an objective correlate to subjectivity. The Materialist claim is that only objectivity exists. Materialism is an abstract philosophy that no one could actually live - no one lives as though their subjective inner life is merely a mechanical appearance of a brain, and consciousness is an illusion.
Why would it make a difference to how we live?

Just for the record I think that "consciousness is an illusion" is a silly position, as is "consciousness is a caricature".
 
We all live as there is an objective correlate to subjectivity. The Materialist claim is that only objectivity exists. Materialism is an abstract philosophy that no one could actually live - no one lives as though their subjective inner life is merely a mechanical appearance of a brain, and consciousness is an illusion.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about.

What I do know is that we can only demonstrate the natural, the material, the physical world. And by that, I mean over and over and over again. I can demonstrate and you can confirm the width and height of a 2 x 4 piece of lumber, (3.5 inches by 1.75 inches) a kilowatt of electricity, a kilogram of tomatoes and so on. I can tell you I'm holding a glass with billions of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen and you know I'm talking about water.

The non-natural or metaphysical is something that only exists in your imagination. It is not confirmable. Therefore it isn't worth consideration.

Want to give it a go again?
 
The only question is why (g)we so easily recognize it when it's wall of text Timecube online gibberish but gush over it when it's in Latin in a fine leatherbound book.

It's venerable, so people venerate it. Use your own modern words to represent a concept, people will take you less seriously than if you pull out some Latin phrase or classic argument. Because it shows you know some Latin phrase or classic argument, so you must be smart and have a point, right? (Especially if it's about theory of mind, because if there's one thing people really understood well back when they were writing Latin phrases and classic arguments, it's the human mind.)

So if you say that dualism's explanation for qualia boils down to "because magic", people immediately conclude you're just being dismissive and snarky. But if you mumble something about ignotus per ignotium, suddenly you have an astute point. Because magic.
 
I have no idea wtf you're talking about.

What I do know is that we can only demonstrate the natural, the material, the physical world. And by that, I mean over and over and over again. I can demonstrate and you can confirm the width and height of a 2 x 4 piece of lumber, (3.5 inches by 1.75 inches) a kilowatt of electricity, a kilogram of tomatoes and so on. I can tell you I'm holding a glass with billions of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen and you know I'm talking about water.

The non-natural or metaphysical is something that only exists in your imagination. It is not confirmable. Therefore it isn't worth consideration.

Want to give it a go again?

You are falsely equating the ability to measure with having to be physical. It's the physical world that exists in our imagination - we can only postulate that it is there.
 
You are falsely equating the ability to measure with having to be physical. It's the physical world that exists in our imagination - we can only postulate that it is there.

Sure...:rolleyes:

Never mind about measuring,. it's outside or independent confirmation that is required. If i see a chair that no one else can see and touch, it's highly unlikely it is there and if I try and sit on it, I'll likely fall on my ass.
 
Last edited:
It's venerable, so people venerate it. Use your own modern words to represent a concept, people will take you less seriously than if you pull out some Latin phrase or classic argument. Because it shows you know some Latin phrase or classic argument, so you must be smart and have a point, right? (Especially if it's about theory of mind, because if there's one thing people really understood well back when they were writing Latin phrases and classic arguments, it's the human mind.)



So if you say that dualism's explanation for qualia boils down to "because magic", people immediately conclude you're just being dismissive and snarky. But if you mumble something about ignotus per ignotium, suddenly you have an astute point. Because magic.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that people discuss it because they find it interesting?

I don't get this thing where the fact that you are not interested in a subject means that you have to attempt to pour clumsy insults on.those who are.

If it doesn't interest you then make use of this time to do something that does interest you.
 
If it doesn't interest you then make use of this time to do something that does interest you.

That's a good question.
When a simple image (a childish provocation) provokes a flood of identical (sometimes equally simple) comments, some people have a problem. What's the point of repeating the same thing over and over again?
In my opinion, they cannot logically respond to the provocation because they have a simplistic concept of science.

That is, they do not have an answer to the obvious different levels of matter. Therefore, the qualia and impossibility of physicalism is an insoluble problem for a dogmatic positivist.
Eventually, the provocation hits them where it hurts most. Dualists are not so silly as it seems.
 

Back
Top Bottom