Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[The Great Hairy One]

And, as I keep reiterating, I have no criticism against plain old "atheism" since someone defining themselves as just an "atheist" could very easily be a Buddhist or whatever. Neither have I suggested - or would I suggest - that discrediting "materialism" automatically discredits "atheism"

I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

It's quite obvious at this point that you are either intentionally lying, or just plain totally confused. In your second paragraph above, you attempt to state that you are trying to discredit "materialistic atheism", which, by your definition, "does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter". This has nothing to do with Atheism at all, and is entirely a discussion around Materialism.

Atheism simply states that the atheist does not believe gods exist. That's all. It has no stance on Materialism.

When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")

What, exactly, are your search parameters, as I can not duplicate this result. If I use "materialistic atheism -Hans -Gerhard -Koch" I get 234,000 results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?as_...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

with this article as the first result:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

where Ms O’Hair is talking about atheistic Materialism and Materialism in general. Note the placement of capitals in my previous sentence.

Complete nonsense. The very reason for the existence of adjectives in the English language is to limit, qualify, specify or distinguish a noun. It's why we have them!

"Atheistic" adj. "Materialism" n.

"Materialistic" adj. "Atheism" n.

See? It works either way as "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism".

Go and read Piggy's thread about language usage (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81397).

Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.

That's completely laughable. I love it when people tell me what my "real agenda" is - obviously you can read minds. You should contact JREF and collect the $1 million dollar prize. My "real agenda" is to get you to stop debating dishonestly. That's all.

Secondly, you've not offered a single argument against any form of Atheism here. You're arguing about Materialism. If you somehow manage to disprove Materialism, you have not automatically then disproven Atheism. You'd have to state a new set of arguments actually aimed at Atheism, and discuss Atheism itself, not this mythical construct of yours.

I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.

There are no "branches of atheism". Trying to claim that there plainly are is simply wrong. Atheism is not like christianity, broken into dozens and dozens of sects. One is either an Atheist, or one is not. And before you wave your finger in the air, a bhuddist describes themselves as a bhuddist. They don't call themselves atheists (at least, in my experience), but rather nontheists.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta

where gods are discussed as existing, just not worshiped.

I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.

I would agree that arguing over grammar is a waste of time and effort. However, that's not what we are doing. What you are trying to do, erroneously, is to claim that disproving Materialism then disproves Atheism. This is simply not true. You can go ahead and argue about Materialism all you want. The results of those arguments have absolutely no bearing on the status of Atheism.

Your construction of the strawman "Materialistic Atheism" is dishonest and reprehensible. You are not debating in good faith and either you are confused and mistaken, or purposely lying.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" plain and simple. This is the "When you're dead, your dead" variety of "atheism" that does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

It's quite obvious at this point that you are either intentionally lying, or just plain totally confused.

Do you even understand that the adjective preceding the noun "materialistic atheism" makes atheism the subject under discussion?

Until you do I think you should avoid calling others liars or confused.

Atheism simply states that the atheist does not believe gods exist. That's all. It has no stance on Materialism.

And I have repeatedly said I am not offering a critique of pure atheism. I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" - as many other writers do.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
When I do an advanced search on Google for pages that exclude the name Hans Gerhard Koch, the search result still returns 2,020 pages. (Amusingly, the first link is to a paper written by one Howard Thompson for The Texas Atheist newsletter which begins with the sentence "I am a materialistic atheist.")

What, exactly, are your search parameters, as I can not duplicate this result. If I use "materialistic atheism -Hans -Gerhard -Koch" I get 234,000 results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q...s=&safe=images

I enclosed "materialistic atheism" in quote marks for a more accurate result.

Obviously, at 17,900 pages, more people prefer the term "atheistic materialism" but there are still 2,020 pages for "materialistic atheism".

Why you have set yourself an impossible task here puzzles me. Unless you are delusional, you can't seriously even begin to hope that you will ever convice anybody to stop using the term "materialistic atheism" when they mean "materialistic atheism" rather than non-materialistic forms of atheism.

As you note yourself, "atheism" in isolation is just an absense of belief in God/s. "Materialistic atheism" - or "materialistic atheist" - specifically refers to those atheists who also adhere to materialism in addition to having no belief in God/s. It is not a claim that all athesists are also materialists.

with this article as the first result:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

where Ms O’Hair is talking about atheistic Materialism and Materialism in general. Note the placement of capitals in my previous sentence.

I note the placement of capitals - but I don't see why you think it means anything specific - and you certainly haven't explained why you think it's right to mangle capitalisation so.

As to your citatation - and I'm surprised you provided that link, O'Hair begins her address with the statement "The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known." and goes on to add "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy,..".

Now, naturalism is certainly not the exact equivalent of materialism and I disagree with the claim that materialism is an indestructible foundation to atheism, but that point is moot compared to the fact that O'Hair accepts that materialism is the foundation and basis of (her brand of) atheism.

If you can see some crucial difference between the statements "materialism is the foundation of atheism" and (shortening it to) "materialistic atheism" or any good reason at all why this contraction is wrong, unclear or gramatically incorrect then share it. Just saying it ain't so ad nauseam isn't very convincing.

In fact, it's just plain wrong.

O'Hair also goes on to say "Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.". Now other disagreements with that statement aside, it's clear O'Hair recognises the proper usage of the term "Atheistic materialism" (just as Howard Thompson, cited above, described his philosophy with the opening statement "I am a materialistic atheist.")

So, it works either way! And the only person who really seems to not get this is you. The end result is that you've constructed a flawed straw man and it's winning.

Go and read Piggy's thread about language usage (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81397).

LOL! I refer you to Piggy's myth number 3:

"3. It's possible for a word to have a "real" meaning that practically everyone who uses the word is wrong about.

That is exactly what you are arguing about the words "materialistic" and "atheism". You're insisting that these words should only be discussed in isolation and everyone who misuses these words by placing them together is wrong!

As piggy notes "There are no arcane "real" meanings [to words]." (edit mine)

Again, your own straw man - and comrade this time - turns around and kicks you in the butt.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Your real agenda here is nothing more than to try to find a way to insulate the most common - or perhaps just the most vociferous - variety of atheism in western culture from real criticism because you realise it cannot withstand well reasoned arguments.

That's completely laughable. I love it when people tell me what my "real agenda" is - obviously you can read minds. You should contact JREF and collect the $1 million dollar prize. My "real agenda" is to get you to stop debating dishonestly. That's all.

Secondly, you've not offered a single argument against any form of Atheism here. You're arguing about Materialism. If you somehow manage to disprove Materialism, you have not automatically then disproven Atheism. You'd have to state a new set of arguments actually aimed at Atheism, and discuss Atheism itself, not this mythical construct of yours.

Point one, I have offered several arguments - against one form of atheism in particular "materialistic atheism". Your basically saying my posts don't exist! (And it's interesting to note that you recognise there are form of atheism when you want to.)

Point two, I have never claimed that disproving materialism automatically disproves atheism - and neither would I ever claim such a thing. There are non-materialistic atheists and, clearly, non-materialistic atheism would not be disproven by any refutation of materialism.

Point three, the construct "materialistic atheism" is hardly mythical or mine. This is plainly a lie or confusion on your part.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I have defined quite clearly what branch of "atheism" I am critiquing and what type I'm not critiquing. The only intellecual dishonesty here is your insistence that there are not differing types of atheism when there quite plainly are.

There are no "branches of atheism". Trying to claim that there plainly are is simply wrong. Atheism is not like christianity, broken into dozens and dozens of sects. One is either an Atheist, or one is not.

Yet you also accept there are forms of atheism when you (falsly) accuse me of not offering "a single argument against any form of Atheism here." Those are your own words.

But, for fun, let's check Google.

"types of atheism" provides 25,300 pages.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GLJ,GGLJ:2007-19,GGLJ:en&q="types+of+atheism"

"forms of atheism" provides 664 pages

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GLJ,GGLJ:2007-19,GGLJ:en&q="forms+of+atheism"

Looks like your wrong again. (It must really be annoying when all your own straw men gang up on you!)

And before you wave your finger in the air, a bhuddist describes themselves as a bhuddist. They don't call themselves atheists (at least, in my experience), but rather nontheists.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta

where gods are discussed as existing, just not worshiped.

There are several Buddhist sects that recognise "gods" that aren't in any way related to the notion of a supreme being - and who are unworshipped. They're kind of like 'angels as independent agents' rather than as messengers from God as found in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. The term "nontheistic" would certainly apply here.

Other sects however are more explicity atheistic. The Dali Lama has been noted as saying:

"Basically, religions may be divided into two groups. One group, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some ancient Indian traditions, I call God religions. Their fundamental faith is in a Creator. The other group of religious tradition, including Jainism, Buddhism, I usually call godless religions. They do not believe in a Creator. But, of course, God is a sense of infinite love. The religions are not so different in this understanding. But God in the sense of Creator, something absolute, that is difficult to accept."

The "gods" of Tibetan Buddhism are more like nature elementals adopted from the native Bon religion of Tibet. (To further confuse the issue there is also "Bon Buddhism".)

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I strongly suggest you look to yourself first and perhaps get your facts straight before you get yourself in to what basically amounts to an argument over grammar.

What you are trying to do, erroneously, is to claim that disproving Materialism then disproves Atheism.

That is an outright, blatant, lie. I have stated many times that I am only criticising "materialistic atheism" and recognised fully that there are other forms of atheism unaffected by this criticism.

Your construction of the strawman "Materialistic Atheism" is dishonest and reprehensible. You are not debating in good faith and either you are confused and mistaken, or purposely lying.

This has got to be the most barmy think you've written so far - and that's saying something. This entire post of yours is nothing more than whining.

You simply can't stand fair criticisms being leveled at the "materialistic" form of "atheism". You want to return to the good old days where the armchair skeptic can just sit there constantly repeating "I'm don't believe without evidence" and never have to offer any evidence for any alternatives.

While everyone has the right to just be skeptical and espouse nothing, it's certianly not being scientific - which requires one to compare and contrast alternatives and state which thesis they would advance. (That's why it's called thesis defence rather than 'sitting on the fence'.)

Your whole argument makes about as much sense as someone trying to suggest that theism and religion should only ever be discussed separately.

People just aren't going to do that.

Or, how about someone just sits in their armchair denying all materialistic ideas about the origin of objective reality and consciousness and never offering up any ideas of their own?

Do you really expect people to be constantly verbose, pointing out that they don't mean Buddhists or Taoists, etc., and only ever using the single term "atheism" when "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" explains quite clearly what they mean?

Again, in both instances there is an adjective preceeding a noun - and the standard rule in English is that adjectives are used to limit and clarify nouns.

Who are you to demand "Oh no, you can't do that with atheism!".

Seriously. Answer that question. Why should the word "atheism" be maintained involate unlike other nouns?

My choice of words is both gramatically correct and philosophically accurate. You seem to be the only person I know you wants a debate to be more vague when the rule is to be as precise as possible.

Now, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because you realise that you have no defense against arguements against "materialistic atheism"?

Yup, it sure could, couldn't it?

_
HypnoPsi

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Do you even understand that the adjective preceding the noun "materialistic atheism" makes atheism the subject under discussion?

Except you're not even discussing Atheism. You're discussing some weird, non-standard version of Atheism which:

does not consider consciousness to be a distinct phenomenon from matter, among other things.

This has nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in god(s), as I pointed out in an earlier post.

I can see that I have made a mistake - I didn't make myself clear in that I am not arguing grammar, I am arguing application and definition. You are correct, a person can describe themselves as a "materialistic atheist". They can also describe themselves as a "communist atheist" or "mystic teapot". These are all grammatically correct terms, however, what you are attempting to do is redefine Atheism in it's entirety as a branch of Materialism, which is not correct. This is the strawman you have constructed - a "new" form of Atheism which has this non-standard definition of yours.

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear:

Your definition of "Materialistic Atheist" is incorrect (and this is the strawman you have constructed). You're attempting to base your version of "Materialistic Atheism" on this concept of consciousness being separate from the biological framework. It has nothing to do with Atheism.

And I have repeatedly said I am not offering a critique of pure atheism. I am offering a critique of "materialistic atheism" - as many other writers do.

1) There is no such thing as your definition of "Materialistic Atheism". It's a strawman constructed by you.

2) You have not offered any critique of Atheism in any of your previous posts. All of your arguments have been about Materialism.

3) Define "Pure Atheism" for me, please.

4) Please provide any links or cites of authours which agree with your definition of "Materialistic Atheism" - i.e. agree with you that the philosophy of Atheism covers the concepts of consciousness.

As you note yourself, "atheism" in isolation is just an absense of belief in God/s. "Materialistic atheism" - or "materialistic atheist" - specifically refers to those atheists who also adhere to materialism in addition to having no belief in God/s. It is not a claim that all athesists are also materialists.

Would you describe someone as a christian conservative? How about a Jewish atheist? Then, if you "disprove" christianity, do you disprove conservative politics as well? How about visa versa? If you disprove atheism, do you then disprove juadism as well?

For this is what you are trying to do, mate. You're trying to assign the meaning of "Materialism" to "Atheism" as well, and it does not fit.

As to your citatation - and I'm surprised you provided that link,

Why shouldn't I supply it?

O'Hair begins her address with the statement "The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known." and goes on to add "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy,..".

Now, naturalism is certainly not the exact equivalent of materialism and I disagree with the claim that materialism is an indestructible foundation to atheism, but that point is moot compared to the fact that O'Hair accepts that materialism is the foundation and basis of (her brand of) atheism.

If you can see some crucial difference between the statements "materialism is the foundation of atheism" and (shortening it to) "materialistic atheism" or any good reason at all why this contraction is wrong, unclear or gramatically incorrect then share it. Just saying it ain't so ad nauseam isn't very convincing.

In fact, it's just plain wrong.

O'Hair also goes on to say "Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.". Now other disagreements with that statement aside, it's clear O'Hair recognises the proper usage of the term "Atheistic materialism" (just as Howard Thompson, cited above, described his philosophy with the opening statement "I am a materialistic atheist.")

So, it works either way! And the only person who really seems to not get this is you. The end result is that you've constructed a flawed straw man and it's winning.

I'll agree that she's grammatically correct in her usage of the two terms. And I should have been more clear myself - I'm not attacking your grammar. I'm attacking your definition, which is the strawman I have been referring to in our discussion.

LOL! I refer you to Piggy's myth number 3:

"3. It's possible for a word to have a "real" meaning that practically everyone who uses the word is wrong about.

That is exactly what you are arguing about the words "materialistic" and "atheism". You're insisting that these words should only be discussed in isolation and everyone who misuses these words by placing them together is wrong!

As piggy notes "There are no arcane "real" meanings [to words]." (edit mine)

Again, your own straw man - and comrade this time - turns around and kicks you in the butt.

Wow. Just wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone misinterpret a point so badly. You are the party assigning the incorrect definition to "Atheist". Not me.

Point one, I have offered several arguments - against one form of atheism in particular "materialistic atheism". Your basically saying my posts don't exist! (And it's interesting to note that you recognise there are form of atheism when you want to.)

You have offered no arguments, in any of your previous posts, against Atheism.

Point two, I have never claimed that disproving materialism automatically disproves atheism - and neither would I ever claim such a thing. There are non-materialistic atheists and, clearly, non-materialistic atheism would not be disproven by any refutation of materialism.

Then why are you attempting to assign the incorrect definition to atheism?? Why are you attacking materialism and saying nothing about atheism, yet expecting us to believe you've shown atheism to be wrong??

Point three, the construct "materialistic atheism" is hardly mythical or mine. This is plainly a lie or confusion on your part.

Sorry, I did not make myself very clear. I'll reiterate - it's your definition of "Materialistic Atheism" which is incorrect. I will agree that the term is grammatically correct.

That is an outright, blatant, lie. I have stated many times that I am only criticising "materialistic atheism" and recognised fully that there are other forms of atheism unaffected by this criticism.

On the contrary, my amusingly confused friend, it is quite clearly the truth. You are the one attempting to argue against Materialism, and with your flawed understanding of Atheism (or strawman erroneously constructed), thence claim you have "disproven" Atheism. That describes your argument in a nutshell, and it's obviously incorrect.

This has got to be the most barmy think you've written so far - and that's saying something. This entire post of yours is nothing more than whining.

You simply can't stand fair criticisms being leveled at the "materialistic" form of "atheism". You want to return to the good old days where the armchair skeptic can just sit there constantly repeating "I'm don't believe without evidence" and never have to offer any evidence for any alternatives.

While everyone has the right to just be skeptical and espouse nothing, it's certianly not being scientific - which requires one to compare and contrast alternatives and state which thesis they would advance. (That's why it's called thesis defence rather than 'sitting on the fence'.)

Your whole argument makes about as much sense as someone trying to suggest that theism and religion should only ever be discussed separately.

People just aren't going to do that.

Or, how about someone just sits in their armchair denying all materialistic ideas about the origin of objective reality and consciousness and never offering up any ideas of their own?

Do you really expect people to be constantly verbose, pointing out that they don't mean Buddhists or Taoists, etc., and only ever using the single term "atheism" when "materialistic atheism" or "atheistic materialism" explains quite clearly what they mean?

Again, in both instances there is an adjective preceeding a noun - and the standard rule in English is that adjectives are used to limit and clarify nouns.

Who are you to demand "Oh no, you can't do that with atheism!".

Seriously. Answer that question. Why should the word "atheism" be maintained involate unlike other nouns?

My choice of words is both gramatically correct and philosophically accurate. You seem to be the only person I know you wants a debate to be more vague when the rule is to be as precise as possible.

Now, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because you realise that you have no defense against arguements against "materialistic atheism"?

Yup, it sure could, couldn't it?

Your debating skills are weak, young padwan.

1) You've offered no actual criticism of atheism,

2) You're still trying to attribute to me an agenda, even though you can not read minds,

3) If you wish to debate about Atheism, I'd be quite happy to do so. You'd lose. Start a new thread.

4) You are right about the grammatical construction of "materialistic atheist". You are wrong about your definition of the term, and your continued dishonest corruption of "Atheist".

It's really that simple.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Mobyseven]

Should we just divorce society completely, perhaps having some live in the north and some in the south separated by a huge wall across which they can shout insults at each other just because one group happens to believe the Universe has a conscious creator and the other believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated?

You know what, that doesn't sound like a half bad idea. While we're at it, lets build the wall out of the shattered dreams of children.

Seriously HypnoPsi, you've been saying some weird things here, such as a "magic powder underlying reality" that show you have no clue what you are talking about.

Prove me wrong. Cite the scientific study that suggested that there is a magic powder that underlies reality, and then tell me what your issues with the study are.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Should we just divorce society completely, perhaps having some live in the north and some in the south separated by a huge wall across which they can shout insults at each other just because one group happens to believe the Universe has a conscious creator and the other believes the Universe spontaneously self-generated?

You know what, that doesn't sound like a half bad idea. While we're at it, lets build the wall out of the shattered dreams of children.

Who are you to decide what dreams have been shattered by who?

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.

We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not) and absolutely nothing at all for materialistic theories of consciousness like Dennett's idea that theromstats have beliefs...

Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone should be taught (indoctrinated) one way or the other. I'm saying we should each have the opportunity to consider both materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness and each have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.

Prove me wrong. Cite the scientific study that suggested that there is a magic powder that underlies reality, and then tell me what your issues with the study are.

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

It's as simple as that.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

It's as simple as that.

Yes. "Simple".

I feel that you do not understand what this means.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

We have positive published evidence for psi

We do?

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[qayak]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
We have positive published evidence for psi

We do?

Yes, I put 30 of them (psi) in my car's tires before evey trip!

 

[Mobyseven]

Who are you to decide what dreams have been shattered by who?

You aren't familiar with 'sarcasm', are you?

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.

Er...what exactly do you think a scientific theory is? Theories in science ARE well supported by peer reviewed scientific studies. They aren't just cooked up from the magic powder that resides in the brains of all scientists...

We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not)

Well, see here's the thing. You say that. But you haven't produced any references for it...which makes me think that you might be talking out of an alternate cavity.

Prove me wrong. Show me the studies.

and absolutely nothing at all for materialistic theories of consciousness like Dennett's idea that theromstats have beliefs...

Again - unless you provide some sort of reference for this, I'm not just going to up and believe you. Where has Dennett stated that "[sic]theromstats have beliefs"?

Prove me wrong. Show me the reference - in context.

Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.

References. Justification. And an explanation for why you believe, "...that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution."

These are all things that you need to provide. Just asserting something doesn't make it so.

Prove me wrong. Put up the evidence, put up the explanation.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone should be taught (indoctrinated) one way or the other. I'm saying we should each have the opportunity to consider both materialistic and non-materialistic views of consciousness and each have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.

...um, unless you live in a country where freedom of speech and belief is against the law, you ARE allowed to do that.

I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

First, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Second, you seem to have a very, very poor grasp of physics.

It's as simple as that.

Okay then, a simple question: Four hydrogen atoms fuse to form a helium atom. What is the mass of the helium atom relative to the four hydrogen atoms?

 

[HypnoPsi]

As far as I'm concerned, to be strictly scientific, people should give greater weight to positive published evidence rather than pure theory - but that's a matter of individual choice.

Er...what exactly do you think a scientific theory is? Theories in science ARE well supported by peer reviewed scientific studies. They aren't just cooked up from the magic powder that resides in the brains of all scientists...

As noted above, I'm well aware that a scientific theory should be developed from evidence based research. And, there are positive peer reviewed published results for psi - a fact that is true even if you don't believe in the results.

But what evidence is there for any materialistic theories of consciousness? Do you believe Dennett is right about thermostats having beliefs about the world? I don't see any reason to believe that IP or EM either generates or is the same thing as consciousness. Do you? I'm just asking for the evidence.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
We have positive published evidence for psi (whether you accept it or not)

Well, see here's the thing. You say that. But you haven't produced any references for it...which makes me think that you might be talking out of an alternate cavity.

Prove me wrong. Show me the studies.

You are grossly uneducated if you are sincerely unaware that there have been positive peer reviewed results published for psi! But to answer your question, I'm quite happy to provide citations to someone who is able and willing to advance the opposite argument.

What I'm not prepared to do is cite evidence for psi that people can just snipe at while never arguing the alternative themselves. How about you just go ahead and attempt to justify Dennett's teleofunctionalism arguments for thermostats or whatever and I'll just rip that to shreds while never advancing the opposite argument for consciousness as a distinct phenomena?

Doing science is hard, isn't it? It means having to defend your thesis against criticism. Only the layman gets to say "I have no idea either way".

Science is about adding to human understanding. You have to compare and contrast alternative ideas and state what view you are supporting [/iand why as well as stating what view you are critical of and why.

So, by all means, feel free to criticise psi research. I am more than willing to criticise materialistic research into IP and EM (and claiming it's research into consciousness). But if you're not going to support and advance materialistic research then don't expect me to enter a one-sided debate.

Again - unless you provide some sort of reference for this, I'm not just going to up and believe you. Where has Dennett stated that "[sic]theromstats have beliefs"?

Prove me wrong. Show me the reference - in context.

That I will happily provide a citation for. Dennett states "The maximal leniency of the position I have recommended on this score is notoriously illustrated by my avowal that even lowly thermostats have beliefs."

http://pp.kpnet.fi/seirioa/cdenn/doanimal.htm

Now, while I strongly disagree with Dennett about thermostats having beliefs, I can at least respect him for having the courage to advance a materialistic argument for consciousness. (In Dennett's case it's called the teleofunctional argument.)

(Yes, yes, I know he's a philosopher and not a scientist but he's still going about the debate the right way.)

Dennett has, admirably, laid bare his view and opened himself to criticism. Someone like that - who is willing to defend the opposite idea - has the right to be listened to when he criticises views of consciousness as a distinct phenomena (psi).

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Do people make a conscious choice in mate-selection or are all qualia in consciousness nothing more than the experience of underlying IP mechanics with 'free will' and/or 'agency' being illusionary? I think you'll find that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution.

References. Justification. And an explanation for why you believe, "...that consciousness as a distinct phenomena refutes a purely mechanical view of evolution."

Again, see above. But I think this one pretty much stands out on it's own as rather self-evident. If consciousness is a phenomena distinct from IP and/or EM then it has to be added to pressures driving all behaviour - including that very behaviour that results in making babies!

Or don't you know where they come from?

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I'm a non-materialist - I don't believe in any self-generating magical powder. And I'm more than happy to point out the law of conservation to any materialist regarding the origin of the objective universe. Physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter.

First, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Second, you seem to have a very, very poor grasp of physics.

What topic are we discussing if not materialistic views versus non-materialistic views exactly?

I don't care what you think if my understanding of physics. The law of conservation is that physical laws do not allow for the creation (or destruction) of matter. If you think matter can spontaneously self-generate out of nothing then provide evidence and an explanation for this nobel prize winning discovery.

Okay then, a simple question: Four hydrogen atoms fuse to form a helium atom. What is the mass of the helium atom relative to the four hydrogen atoms?

You're taking me back a few years here, but in the case of the protieum hydrogen isotope in relation to helium-4, the overall mass of four helium atoms relative to 1 hydrogen atom should be nearly the same since protons and neutrons have a very close atomic mass and electrons have a negligable mass (and you're only losing two in this reaction).

(I can't be bothered doing the calculations for the AMU's to however many decimal places would be required - about 10 if I recall correctly.)

What does this have to do with anything?

_
HypnoPsi