Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[articulett]

Tis beautiful, Paul

And it was nominated too.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Pixy is asserting that explaining the fundamental existent can't be done -- all we can do is describe it.

You seem to agree with this.

That would probably be as fair an approximation of the situation as any.

Except you think materialism asserts that it can be explained. Maybe in the past, but as everyone who is a materialist here will tell you, we no longer think like that. We think in terms of "properties of stuff" now, not "stuff." This is what pixy has been trying to explain to you for this entire thread.

If you want to argue further along that line, you should know you are arguing with a strawman.

I disagree. Your own words above seem to suggest that you (like myself) do indeed believe there is a fundamental existent - even though you obviously recognise how difficult it is to discuss the subject.

The point I'm making here is that for atheists/materialists this fundamental existent that you think exists and manifests as objective phenomena (that which you call "matter") surely must be something self-perpetuating and self-generating (i.e. uncreated) due to "God" not being part of the equation for atheists.

Using words like "matter" and "physical" which obviously have a history only tells me that, even though modern physics has forced a shift in your thining (so that you very well probably do mean something very different by the terms than an 18th and 19th century scientist) you are still ultimately claiming the same thing.

As I see it that claim can be summed up as "matter" (whatever it ultimately is) is something that is believed to be self-perpetuating and self-generating - uncreated.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Using words like "matter" and "physical" which obviously have a history only tells me that, even though modern physics has forced a shift in your thining (so that you very well probably do mean something very different by the terms than an 18th and 19th century scientist) you are still ultimately claiming the same thing.

It is what it is. We have learned better how to describe it.

As I see it that claim can be summed up as "matter" (whatever it ultimately is) is something that is believed to be self-perpetuating and self-generating - uncreated.

Self-perpetuating? Self-created? No, those don't apply. It merely is what it is.

We observe the Universe, and describe how it behaves, and we test our descriptions against further observations. We do our best not to add anything, nor to leave anything out. When we don't know, we say we don't know; when we cannot know, we admit that too.

That is all anyone can do.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Look Paul, the most scientific thing to do when constructiong a theory is to base it upon as many "knowns" as possible with as few (preferably zero) "unknowns" as possible.

You don't know crap-all about god. You just think he seems like he might possibly be something a bit like consciousness. That's it.

Hmmm... where to begin... You do understand that when you work parsinomiously the final theory is still itself just a tentative solution don't you (one that requires testing, etc.,)?

I'm not saying "God" is a known or that I know "crap-all" about Him/Her/It.

What I am saying is that even if modern physics has forced a re-think in materialism about the ultimate nature of things the basic principle the materialist is still left with the belief that the essence of things is something self-sustaining and self-perpetuating (i.e. uncreated).

Whether or not materialists no longer choose to believe that particles, for example, are little solid things or not is completely beside the point.

The real question is what is this belief/claim predicated on?

Materialism - however you define it - isn't predicated on anything that anyone has ever encountered. It relies on multiplying unknowns and is therefore not as parsimonious a theory as theism.

The theist is just theorising that there is another bigger consciousness capable of thinking the Universe, predicated on their own experience that consciousness exists.

None of this proves which theory is right. Either one still could be the case. It's just that materialism requires more faith.

You can make consciousness as large as you like, but since the concept is based on human consciousness, it can only focus its attention on a fraction of the total content of its memory. You need an explanation for how the rest of the memory of the universe is maintained. It's gods all the way down.

No... you're still not getting me with this whole memory lark of yours. I genuinely do not see where you're going with it. Okay, so God is really, really, clever with a big memory. So what?

First of all, I'm not a materialist.

Physicalist then, yes? Either way, if you are atheist (and not a Buddhist) then are you not believing in something existing that is self-perpetuating and self-sustaining (uncreated) that is ultimately responsible for your own consciousness as well as all objective phenomena in the Universe.

That Paul, is basically materialism however you like to dress it up - even as "physicalism".

However, at least scientists are working on theories of consciousness.

The scientists in consciousness reasearch who are working on theories would be the materialistic ones. Because that's all they can do - like Dennett's theorising about thermostats. Materialists are stuck at the drawing board.

Other scientists in consciousness research are actively doing experiments into psi and getting good results.

All we have from materialists is claims that computers/cells are conscious. We don't have any evidence at all. Indeed, everything about materialism is faith, belief, faith, belief and even more faith and belief.

Who is working on a theory of the Overmind?

If anyone is, it's not a materialist.

Cheers,
HypnoPsi

 

[Dancing David]

Which is what Malerin has been arguing all along. Why is it, then, that given we know that the currency of idealism exists (consciousness, mind, thought), and we can never know whether the currency of materialism exists (mind-independent ´stuff´) that you and most other orthodox JREFers hitch your wagon of faith to materialism and attack idealism whenever it appears?

Hiya, do you actualy read anything or do you just post random humor in an attempt to be funny.

Malerin and others are not saying that materialism and idealism are the same, I am.

So you are wrong on all counts, I am not a materialist, I say that we go with approximate models and that they best predict reality when you assume that there is 'stuff' there. It does not matter if the stuff is matter, godthought or butterfly dreams.

You really are a poseur. i am disappointed.

It has been demonstrated that idealism is a priori in the stronger position, and that materialists must rely more on faith than idealists.
Why go with the weaker position?

It has also been demonstrated a priori that racism is meaningful.

You are just ASSUMING that the alleged problems with consciousness go away for idealism, they are still there and exactly the same.

The two systems matter vs. ideal are exactly the same (in that there is no way to tell the difference between the two). You just make assumptions that magically idealism has a preferred position.

If you were paying attention you would notice that my position is that the debate is meaningless, the universe behaves as though it is made of 'stuff', the nature of that stuff is unknowable. All that can be judged is it's behavior.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I think the only thing that could really confirm 'mystical' experiences like NDEs or out of body experiences as anything more than vivid dreams is if persons actually came back with vertical information that they would not otherwise be able to obtain.

This page is pretty good:

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Why would you say that the thoughts I have while meditating are not filtered through the senses?

If you can smell, touch, feel, hear or see your cognitive sense of self and consciousness that's a pretty neat trick, Paul.

Those thoughts are not my consciousness; consciousness is not thought. Those thoughts are played on my senses by god, just like a smell or a visual scene, or the memory of the trees in my yard when I return from vacation. There is no reason to place any special trust in them.

I dunno. If something was genuinely sent by God, I'd consider that a pretty trustworthy authorty.

Again, you need to spend some time delineating what is the fundamental existent you can trust by direct experience, and what all the other stuff is.

I need do no such thing. In my schema God has created points of consciousness (souls, if you like) and phenomenal reality with a vital essence born of Him/Her/It.

How it all works I have absolutely no idea and there are certainly plenty of unanswered questions. My point has never been that I or any other theist has an answer to everything. (I'll state right here and now that I certainly don't know the answer to everything or how everything works.)

All I do know - very clearly - is that theism requires a heck of a lot less faith than any type of materialism - be that the traditional, good old fashioned, type or the modern trendy "physicalist" type.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

This page is pretty good:

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

That page is crap.

Look at the first thing on the list: "NDEs occur while patients are brain dead."

If you are brain dead, your brain is dead. Dead and starting to smell.

You do not come back from brain death.

 

[Dancing David]

And the findings, ultimately, are only known via subjective perception. Which is what makes the whole proposition self-undermining.

It cuts both ways PJ, as anyone know, a good sword does.

You and everybody here just assumes that they are having these thoughts and experiences. they just assume that all the time. But as to what the experiences actually are they are still in the same hole as the materialist position, for the same reasons.

there are couple of counters to it however:

a. The p-zombie argument, it demonstrates effectively that there is no difference between a conscious creature and one that just behaves consciously. None whatsoever.

So here is the deal, you can not say that you are having a subjective perception or if you are a creature that does not have subjective perception, you just behave as though you do.

b. Butterfly dreams ( Chuan Tzu); you can not tell if you are the philosopher eating an ice cream cone, or if you are the butterfly dreaming you are a philosopher eating the ice cream cone, when really you are a snail dreaming you are a butterfly dreaming you are a philosopher.

From all perspectives there is the phenomena of the alleged philosopher eating the alleged ice cream cone, but which one is the true subjective perception.

Which is why ontology is a moot point,

all we have is what we have, all we can examine is what we have.

Chained to a mindwall, brains in vats, butterfly dreams, god thought or quanta of energy, they are all the same when you look at them.

there is no way to tell the difference.

Regardless of the ontology, all you can do is observe, so if it is godthought, it is god thought that acts as though it is quanta of energy.

If the subjective perception is true (and all that there is), then will you gouge out your eye to see more clearly? (To quote the alleged historical buddha.)

 

[Dancing David]

You can´t ever know this because you can´t ever demonstrate the existence of the material (mind-independent stuff).

You also can't demonstrate that consciousness is real or just an empty vessel that looks like it is conscious but isn't.

A good argument cuts all ways.

Trees act as though they are there when no one is looking, even if they disappear and reappear.

there is no difference between materialism and idealism. they are the same.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Then you should have no trouble explaining everything about God, including its nature, properties, origins (yes, origins) and the mechanism by which it interacts with reality.

I don't know of any materialist or physicalist who is able to explain all these things, do you?

Why would you assume any theist can?

Failure to do so would be begging the question, and therefore indistinct from the dishonest tactic of taking what you already believe in and plugging it into gaps in knowledge.

You should try reading this out to yourself while looking in the mirror.

Whatever you say about any model's scope and use to explain and answer all our questions is meaningless since both theism and materialism have the same problems. I don't think too many would deny this. That matters nothing in regards to the question about which theory requires more faith.

And the theory that requires more faith is, indisputably, materialism.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Dancing David]

That´s just a massive assumption on your part. If you were to say ´the normal consciousness of the individual human being´ I might agree with you.


Your alternative is to go with matter, for which there will never be any evidence. I go with Overmind, Metamind, God, Universal Consciousness..whatever one wants to call it. For this there is indeed thousands of years of evidence in the form of the likes of expanded consciousness, God-consciousness, Theosis, Fana, Nirvana, Samadhi, the Beatific Vision etc etc..
Of course, most JREFers get to dismiss that evidence by hiding behind the usual ´it´s anecdotal´ or ´it´s subjective´ or ´perception can be wrong sometimes´. Well, given the subject matter, how could such evidence not be?

the nature of the existance of matter is exactly the same.

the problem is that when it comes to approximate models that explain the behavior of reality:

there is no way to demonstrate the existance of god.

If you have one that is more valid that the current model of neurology, then we can start a thread and examine it.

All models are constructs, validity comes from making predictions about the behavior of the reality.


Your assumption that beings exist which have those experiences or that those experiences are real is exactly the same mistake you accuse the materialists of making. neither can be proved. they are equal and the same.

God models do not explain the double slit experiment however.

BTW you should not use Nirvana in your example above, it shows that you or the person you are modeling it on have not read up on the teachings of the alleged historical buddha.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I don't understand why everyone in your club isn't jumping all over the science of the Overmind, getting down with the details.

~~ Paul

Silentknight just pretty much said the exact same thing - for absolutely no more good reason than you.

Why, pray tell, just because someone is a theist would they suddenly have no trouble explainging everything about God and his relationshiop to the Universe and us?

I haven't got a clue about the answer to these things. No materialist has an answer either from their perspective. How could they have?

The only thing we can meaningfully answer is which viewpoint requires more faith and/or is more or less parsimonious. And clearly, theism and not materialism/physicalism is the model that is most parsimonious and requiring of less faith.

Why are you so satisfied?

I am not particularly satisfied. I have a million and one questions about God I'd like an answer to - and probably twice as many questions for God should I ever encounter Him/Her/It.

Why are you so satisfied with materialism, or 'physicalism' if you prefer?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Dancing David]

Pixy is asserting that explaining the fundamental existent can't be done -- all we can do is describe it.

You seem to agree with this.

Except you think materialism asserts that it can be explained. Maybe in the past, but as everyone who is a materialist here will tell you, we no longer think like that. We think in terms of "properties of stuff" now, not "stuff." This is what pixy has been trying to explain to you for this entire thread.

If you want to argue further along that line, you should know you are arguing with a strawman.

But , but , but , you can't do that!

That is the Materialist in the Straw Castle!

 

[Dancing David]

Utterly and completely wrong. Why exactly would the Universe and phenomenal reality work differently or be less real if someone is an amaterialist (or idealist if you prefer)?

Phenomenal reality doesn't change for an amaterilist. It is solely an absence of belief in any type of prima materia substance underlying reality.

~
HypnoPsi

Do you think that they are the same essentially?

That is the line I take, regardless of ontology, it behaves as though it has substance?

(Perhaps not , just the appearance thing.)

 

[Dancing David]

Arti, you could always try to make the Eureka leap of realising that memory is not the same thing as consciousness. Memory is a content of consciousness.
A stone, itself, may have no memory, yet still be part of Universal Consciousness.

So you really are just using the

*insert miracle here* line of reasoning?

How disappointing.

 

[Dancing David]

The crucial points that materialists like to ignore about mystical experiences is that they are confirmed and apperceived (not filtered through the senses).

The are not the same as the ravings of some poor soul who believes they can see spiders everywhere or whatever while nobody else can.

Mystics across continents and generations have described the same things without ever encountering each other.

The fact that they are apperceived is where things get really interesting though. How can we ever be justified in thinking that information that is filtered through the senses before reaching our awareness is somehow more real than what is intuitively known in Enlightenment?

~
HypnoPsi

Sorry, i disagree here, and quite a bit.

There is huge realm of mystical experience, the montheist victorians and their ilk wanted to see the monotheism every where, and guess what they found it.

Not all mystic traditions lead to the same places as all other mystic traditions.

Some of the concepts are similar but they vary widely in expression and belief.

I am not sure that Vedic fire worship and Bramhanism really equate exactly to the Dreatime of the australian natives. Or that it is comparable to the ritual torture of Mayan priest kings, the toaist by night (I am a vegetarian who eats meat) and confucian by day contains the transcent contradiction in itself .

The only ones that seem to be true for most mystic traditions are
:the gods are capricious
:it is hard to tell gods and devils apart
:be very careful when you take a spiritual journey
:gods, devils and spirits love to fool people


I would love to add;
-all humans are equal, but there are so many mystic traditions that have 'chosen people', 'enlightened beings' and 'divine right of dominance' that I can't say it is true.

 

[Dancing David]

I, for one, am glad no one here "blindly adheres" to materialism. That just wouldn't happen among such a skeptical group of... skepticists.

Am I right, Wasp?

It sure was a struggle for me, but the notion that free will is an illusion was the greatest.

 

[Dancing David]

Nobody has ever observed matter - ever. We can observe and measure objective phenomenal reality. That's all.

We absolutely do not know that it's ultimate essence is some uncreated, self-perpetuating and self-generating "stuff".

~
HypnoPsi

It sure appears to act that way, with a limit of 13.7 billion years.

 

[Dancing David]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that the action potential propagating along the membrane of neurons is electrochemical in nature and its at the juncture of the synapses that these are converted into the purely chemical signals via neurotransmitters.

I don't remember exactly where, but I also recall reading about studies concerned with modeling the computational functions of single neurons. I'll definitely have to check it out a bit more and will provide a link if I can actually find the source again

We said the same thing, your is clearer than mine, my brain (which may or may not exist) was overloaded by this thread yesterday.