Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.

It's too far. Really.

I think you'll find they are sustained by the Sun, rain and the nutrients from the soil.

And those things are likewise sustained. This is evidence for a self-sustaining universe. When you can find the thing outside the universe that is sustaining it, please let us know.

~~ Paul

 

[HypnoPsi]

My conclusion is simply that there are documented (here) instances of people being mistaken about their own perception of their own consciousness.

That doesn't mean anything other than what it means.

It doesn't even mean what you think it means. As I've said preporatory mental activity says nothing about conscious decision making.

If I ask a subject to more either hand to push a button and then a few seconds later I see the preparation build up in either the left or right side of their frontal lobes (for the opposing hand) then why didn't I see it when I first gave them the instruction? (That, after all, is when the conscious decision was really made to carry out the task.)

If I were a subject in this experiment I'd probably be going through a few false "should I, shouldn't I press the button now" moments until the final decision was made.

Your whole interpretation of this experiment seems to assume something very much like a computer model of consciousness whereby there is a clear route from an instruction being given to an action being carried out.

That type of thinking just doesn't apply to human beings. From the moment the subjects were given the instruction to move they were consciously preparing for it. The conclusions you are drawing from this whole thing just aren't warranted. The subjects answers to when they consciously prepared to move would likely be very different from when they consciously decided to move.

And even then, as noted, weren't they preparing to move from the get-go? So how would a subject even interpret such a question about when they prepared to move? Would they guess when they most prepared to move or something?

You don't know enough about all the thoughts motive and impulses to assume anything here.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'm implanting an irresistible suggestion that makes my opponents ridiculous--

Whoops, houseplants spontaneously caught fire again. This might take a minute.

And sure enough...

"Too far" is subjective. I don't consider it too far. And, as I've pointed out in another post, it's not as far as the magic powder theory.

Great, now that I've gotten it to work, I can't figure out how to shut it off. HELP!

 

[HypnoPsi]

What questions, other than the who, where, what, why, when of dogmatic scripture, does theism open?

Why would we look at dogmatic scripture for an answer? My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.

Did you really think about that statement before you made it? I find that hard to believe.

Did you think about this criticism before you made it. I find that impossible to believe.

Real materialists, like Pixy, Paul, and myself (to list a few) fully accept that there is a hard limit to what we can know.

I never suggested you didn't - nor would I.

Yes, you did. Your entire participation on this thread is tantamount to it.

Either find a quote from me where I claim that all you "real materialists" don't recognise there is a "hard limit" to what you can know or don't make baseless accusations.

We have told you over and over that we don't know about the fundamental substance. We don't care about it, because we know we can't know it. All we are concerned with is the fundamental properties.

Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever. Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like. It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand.

All that seems to be the case here is that you know full well that atheism leads to a position about the Universe that just cannot be logically or reasonably defended. Therefore you're trying to redefine things so that there is no question to answer.

The same exact thing has been happening in this thread with consciousness and just saying it's information irocessing or whatever - as if ignoring subjective experience while using cognitive sounding words like "self-referencing" and whatever will make the issue go away.

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?

And your consistent response is "but materialists assert matter is all there is, and this is less parsimonious than asserting mind is all there is." wtf? Can you read? This is literally the third time I have told you that you are arguing with a strawman. And everyone else has done the same. When will you listen? Never?

What are you lying about now?

But that is utter stupidity akin to an amazon warrior shaking his spear at a helicopter gunship and accusing the pilot of being a coward -- if you wanted a good argument, you should have built one. Don't get mad at me because your chosen position leaves you wallowing in jungle muck with the rest of the backwards natives.

Obviously, I am not the one who's gone a little bit over the edge here....

What a result indeed! All one needs to do is point out to atheists:

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

If only we'd all just see it your way, eh RD?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

What does theist materialism/physicalism entail?

Find a theist materialist/physicalist and ask them. (Let me know the answer as well.)

How would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.

Why don't you try Pixy. He's not only quite thoroughly convinced that computers think, he also claims to "completely understand" it.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[articulett]

Do you think plumjam and hypnopsi actually understand each other? Does any one else understand them? How about malerin? My theory is that they all these nebulous beliefs and they all "interpret" things in a way that almost any nebulous phrase seems to support their woo. Like palmistry, you know? Oh, and Nick too.

I just can't nail down a coherent line of thought in any of them... yet, clearly they imagine that they are coming across as making sense to each other, right?-- if not vast amounts of unnamed others that presumably live some place other than in their head. But if no one can sum up their main argument or even their main point, then how do they continue to imagine they are eloquent and speaking "deep truths' or saying something coherent even?

I read it, and it seems like everyone is making sense and sounds so smart and interesting and even funny-- and then this cloud of woo descends and I can't find the point, and the questions all seem loaded, and the inquirers seem incapable of understanding the answer-- I feel like I'm slogging through mental sludge... a word salad...

I think this is some sort of "woo mental trick" to help them believe whatever it is that they feel so good or special or "in on" for believing. I actually don't think there's an coherency at all in their beliefs. It makes them feel "good", so they need it to be true. They help make it true in their heads by spinning it over and over here so they can imagine that they've examined the believe critically and that it "stood up".

But they really just knock science and others down, and never present a coherent picture or evidence of what they believe. They seem to see themselves as wiser than everyone else, but I suspect it's because they are too "afflicted" to realize they are the nutty ones... they are as nutty as those other cultists and crazies they dismiss. I wonder if I would have sounded that way if they had skeptic forums in my woo days?

 

[Z]

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

Agreed - such as a 'god'. Its nature and properties are unknown (aside from fairy stories and ancient myths), and no close analogy even begins to appear to make us believe such a thing is necessary.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

Of course not - what is a toaster oven going to do with consciousness? We save that for our more advanced machines - such as our PCs.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

Science is all about solid, clear definitions. The problem with most of the silliness you expound on is that the more clearly defined it gets, the less it exists.

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

I'm not surprised - human IQ is rapidly dropping, thanks to mass media, conservative leadership, and vanishing ethics. And any drop in IQ, population-wise, tends to lead in inceases in poor mental performance - i.e. lack of skepticisim, growth of mysticism, belief in faeries and spirits.

(But don't point out that his imagined 'opposition' is actually shrinking rapidly, when we look at the recorded history of humanity...)

 

[articulett]

The woo always think materialism is about to be "overturned" just as they imagine evolution will be. They imagine that their ignorance proves that an ever growing body of data doesn't exist to disprove what they desperately wish to be true. It's a Michael Egnor Discovery Institute meme. As if saying it (and repeating it ad nauseum) could make it so. It does become a self-fulfilling prophesy for believers just as the waco cult believed that it was the "end of the world"-- and it was-- for them.

Monkeys are just about to fly out of my butt. Any theory which negates this is just about to be overturned. (repeat ad infinitum for more truthiness power!)

 

[Z]

As science grows, materialism grows. Or, should I say, monism grows. After all, all that quantum stuff is enough to make one believe sub-atomic particles are composed of ideas after all...

 

[Frozenwolf150]

All we can do now is ask which theory is the most parsimonious - the one predicated on something we know can store and create information (consciousness) or the one predicated on a wholly made up gap filler with about as much going for it as fairy dust. (Or less even - since at least some people claim to have actually seen fairies!!)

Really? Consciousness can exist without a brain? Please do expand on your nonsense.

Well, the God-mind theory has clearly been asserted, yet there doesn't appear to have been any brains behind the claim. QED.

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?

Ignoring the arguments and evidence that clash with your worldview doesn't make you right.

Obviously, I am not the one who's gone a little bit over the edge here....

Yeah, as your arguments from persecution, your claims about an atheist conspiracy to brainwash students, your strawmen about atheism requiring faith, your willful ignorance of any evidence that disagrees with you, and the claims about psi experiments that you have refused to back up, clearly demonstrate.

What a result indeed! All one needs to do is point out to atheists:

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

If only we'd all just see it your way, eh RD?

That's a funny impression of Yrreg's claims, but what does it have to do with anything? There's no way that such copious amounts of straw could possibly have been made as a serious argument.


I'd ask you to demonstrate that consciousness can exist without a brain, but it would probably be a futile question, since you'd just try to turn it on its head with one of the following cop-outs:

1) "I don't have to because atheism requires even more faith!"
2) "You atheists are mean! Well just you wait, because one day you'll all have to answer to the wrath of theists and God himself!"
3) "Consciousness is because it is, and it doesn't have to come from anywhere! What? No, that's not circular!"
4) "We have psi experiments! That proves everything!"


Um, yeah.

 

[Z]

Remember, SK - according to HypnoPsi, NDEs are solid proof of consciousness without a brain.

That, and American politicians. Or is that just conscious behavior without a brain?

 

[articulett]

Wow, we've proven NDEs and psi experiences! Time for the MDC. As soon as we get the data we can refine and improve our understanding just like we have with every other true phenomenon.

Unless it's just the latest confirmation biased woo fad... like phrenology or "the Secret" or "synchronicity" or Ouija boards or Bigfoot.

For some reason, despite tons of believers and tons of anecdote... there just never seems to be an iota of measurable evidence. But it appears to make hypnosci feel good and wise-- reminiscent of Interesting Ian, I think.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Find a theist materialist/physicalist and ask them. (Let me know the answer as well.)

So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?

I don't even know why anyone would look for phenomenal experience in a robot in the first place.

Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

So you don't think there are any theists who believe that god created the physical world and then left it alone to work by itself?

Francis Collins would be very surprised.

Perhaps, but how would we determine whether a robot has phenomenal experience?

The same way we do for humans.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why would we look at dogmatic scripture for an answer? My leanings would probably be more towards future research into such things as NDE's - and possibly even mediums, so long as good, stringent, controls were in place.

You do realise that the moment stringent controls are put in place, the claimed effects disappear? That this always happens?

Which for an atheist is clearly that it is uncreated; i.e. self-sustaining, self-perpetuting or self-generating or whatever.

None of those apply.

Heck, call it auto-sustaining/perpetuating or generating if you like.

None of those apply either.

It just exists. All the terms you seek to apply are concepts imported from your own bizarre belief system, and nave no meaning under materialism. This is the same problem idealists and dualists have had in coming to grips with materialism since before Berkeley.

It all amounts to the same thing, as I am quite sure you fully understand.

It all amounts to nothing at all.

All that seems to be the case here is that you know full well that atheism leads to a position about the Universe that just cannot be logically or reasonably defended.

A curious assertion. Perhaps you could back it up with evidence or reasoning?

No?

The same exact thing has been happening in this thread with consciousness and just saying it's information irocessing

Which it clearly is.

or whatever

Sorry, no whatevers. Just information processing.

as if ignoring subjective experience while using cognitive sounding words like "self-referencing" and whatever will make the issue go away.

Again, no whatevers are required.

What's more, we do not ignore subjective experience at all. Subjective experience is information processing.

Myself, malerin and PlumJam are all trying to debate the points while all you lot seem to do is debate the points away!

Because you are inventing problems that do not exist (while ignoring the gaping voids in your own philosophies).

How long are atheists going to have to go through this - and I'm talking about the well known, public, ones too here - before they realise that people just aren't buying it?

Show us an actual problem with our argument, and we will care whether you are buying it.

1) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in a Universe sustained on an unknown thing with unknown properties predicated on nothing known.

Then why do you keep claiming that such a thing exists?

2) That there is absolutely no logic or sense in imbuing toaster ovens with consciousness.

That's something for you to take up with the engineers who design the toaster ovens. The fact that toaster ovens are conscious remains.

3) That science is about thesis defence as much as skepticism and that this is the very thing that makes it a nobel pursuit and that therefore they shouldn't try to argue valid points off the table by redefining them.

What?

And they spit out the pacifier and throw a tantrum!

Who does?

Same stuff. Different day. How anyone can honestly be surprised that opposition is growing exponentially against this whole atheist/skeptic/materialist movement is amazing.

Exponentially, eh?

What's the exponent? 0.5?

 

[PixyMisa]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.

Then list all the properties of your God. In complete detail.

If God has fewer properties than matter, then that is a more parsimonious assumption than matter itself. However, we have to ask, if God has fewer properties than matter, how does he give rise to matter?

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

Except for the wee problem that we can observe that the Universe exists, and continues to exist, and we can prove that computers are conscious.

Whereas your God is nowhere to be found in evidence or logic.

The burden of proof is equal yet there seems to be no way either of us can even begin to prove our respective theories. All we can do is consider the logic of either theory.

Yes, indeed.

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?

The material is what is.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe.

Why do you assume there's an answer?

Fine - so God, to you, is a massive leap. It matters none. Materialism is still an even bigger leap since it's not predicated on anything at all regardless of the distance between the foundation and posited solution.

It's predicated on every observation ever. We observe a Universe. Materialism simply states that the Universe we observe is what exists.

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do.

Nope.

No parapsychological experiment with proper controls has shown any evidence for any effect of any kind.

But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.

Infinite fail.

Does your God have limits? No? Then it's infinitely unparsimonious. It matters not how short the label you attach, what matters is the multiplication of assumptions. God is not a single assumption, but an infinite set of assumptions.

Materialism simply says: The Universe we observe is what is.

 

[gentlehorse]

My only claim here is that God is the most parsimonious theory to explain existence when set against atheist theories like materialism or physicalism (however you choose to describe them). That's it. Nothing more.

Aside from that, I can no more prove God than you or any other atheist can prove that the Universe and everything in it is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating or that computers are conscious.

The burden of proof is equal yet there seems to be no way either of us can even begin to prove our respective theories. All we can do is consider the logic of either theory.

To that end, if you want to try to claim that atheistic views are more parsimonious with the data then let's here your explanation?

You assume the existence of one more entity than do atheists. If a god-created universe is indistinguishable from a self-sustaining, self-perpetuating universe, to posit the existence of a god, particularly considering the fact that there is no evidence of one, is less parsimonious than an atheistic worldview.

What is materialism/physicalism predicated on? What's its foundation?

That a consistent, mind-independent universe exists.

Wrong. The very reason for positing God or matter is that we're trying to find the best theory to explain why there is a Universe. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't even asking the question.) A smaller or equal consciousness won't cut it.

Another (implied) assumption-- To ask why the universe exists implies that there is a reason. There is no reason to assume that this is the case.

I disagree. Psi experiments have, to me and many others, definitely pushed the boudaries of what thought can do. But you're missing the point. Even if there were no psi experiments ever done, God would still be a more parsimonious theory of what sustains existence than some imaginary magic powder that isn't predicated on anything known.

~
HypnoPsi

Psi experiment aside, I'm sure others have pointed out that a god theory is no theory at all in that it's untestable and unfalsifiable. That said, a god explanation of the universe involves an additional entity but yields no more information than a godless explanation. Consequently, a godless explanation is more parsimonious.

 

[PixyMisa]

What the heck?

I find myself largely in agreement with both Nick and Gentlehorse?!

I don't think the world is going to last until 2012 at this rate!

 

[Malerin]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?

 

[PixyMisa]

After 12 pages, I think we can distill theism and materialism into the following:

Theism: God, a conscious being, exists.
Materialism: My toaster, a conscious thing, exists.

And atheists think theists are loopy?

Well, let's see.

We have evidence for toasters. For example, we can see them, touch them, burn our fingers on them, electrocute ourselves sticking knives in them. We spend money to buy them. We even, on occasion, use them to make toast.

Are they conscious? Sure, by Dennett's definition. I would say aware rather than conscious for the average toaster, but I'm sure there are toasters on the market that I would consider conscious (not just aware, but self-aware).

As for God... Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not even a coherent definition.