My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

The question is, do you want to know if your argument is invalid, or do you want to blunder aimlessly through life? Or both?

 

[laca]

My opinion before I joined this forum has not changed;

Sorry to hear that.

Materialism only deals with the physical world, it along with science explains this very well.

Yes.

It is blind to aspects of reality which are not based on known processes in the physical world.

Such as?

It is also blind to any considerations of how we got here,

Nope. You might want to read about the Big Bang^WP, about Abiogenesis^WP and about Evolution^WP. All sciences and all deal with different aspects of how we got here.

... if we actually are here and if being here makes sense or can be justified intellectually.

How is any of that supposed to be helpful?

I am intrigued by this 'critical thinking', which has been mentioned. It appears to be a series of boxes designed to box in an argument and then invalidate it.

Nope. That's not it. Try again?

The 'GWIMW' argument is another example, it is a sort of smoke and mirrors form of argument.

Yes. Glad you realized that, hopefully you won't use it anymore.

Oh, you mean you don't like it when it is pointed out to you that you are abandoning rational debate when you appeal to GWIMW? Tough luck. It's not a fallacy to point out fallacies. Duh!

I am more used to discussions in which participants have a genuine interest in each others point of view and cooperate to develop or refine arguments.
Rather than shoot them down from a bunker, or debunk them.

You mean you are not used to being called out on your BS. Tough luck, people on this forum tend to do that more often than not.

 

[laca]

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent God”.

In my opinion such a God cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.
<snipped rest of post>

You appeal to GWIMW and then spend the rest of your post reasoning about said god's nature? Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that you cannot comprehend this, even after it's been pointed out to you several times in the other thread?

 

[laca]

"A fundamental principle has no origin"?

Right, it's fundamental. If it were to have an origin, it would not be fundamental.

 

[Dancing David]

The blind spot is acknowledging the presence of the elephant.

And the evidence for the elephant is? Besides a vague complaint about infinity.

 

[laca]

Yes, that's pretty much what critical thinking is. You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Well, not necessarily invalidate it. Perhaps test it is a more accurate term.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Distinct from what? The qualia are perceptions, apparently generated by a neural network.

Note apparently. I just don't see any good reason reason to believe in physicalist models of consciousness.

Can you show me a computer that thinks? How can you tell that it's thinking?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

You're assuming there is an ultimate nature.

So you would suggest it is all just sense data?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Dancing David]

I am intrigued by this 'critical thinking', which has been mentioned. It appears to be a series of boxes designed to box in an argument and then invalidate it.

Um, tough row to hoe, critical thinking is about the method of examining evidence and the possible explanations for it.

Meanwhile you are here to say "I believe therefore it must be true.", critical thinking is about using the information at hand.

We all have beliefs that are irrational and habitual, they are often contrary to the evidence. Such muddled thinking leads to ideas like "Women are weak", "Blacks are stupid", "Homosexuality is a sin" and "Killing is the best option". All of these are beliefs that are frequently supported by social mores and confimation bias, that does not make them true.

Your discussion about things you can't define or explain, well that is your issue. If you can't define or explain them, then how do you know what you think?

So far your 'elephant' is a vague hand waving analogy, maybe you should stop and try to explain what you actually think, rather than just using the "You critical thinkers are so mean". Unbeknowst to you, some of us are very familiar with the spiritual realms, and we do consider the evidence. We just happen to come to a different conclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent God”.

In my opinion such a God cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

However one may be able to study Gods creation (the known universe) as an example/expression of the nature of God, especially as the existence of God is assumed in the OP.

Hence I conclude that this omnipotent God would be infinitely ‘involved’ in any and every aspect of his creation (the known universe) fully at any and all points of time (with all that this may imply).

As such the known universe could in theory be ‘read as a book’ or ‘story’. The subject of which would be the nature of God expressed in finite form.

This is a kind of empiricist view I suppose and is to me an interesting line of inquiry.

I appreciate what you say about uses of infinity in math’s. I have little knowledge of such things, however I would think that an omnipotent God if one exists would be far ‘removed/irrevelent’ from/to such work".

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess”.

In my opinion such a Subcontractors and Commiteess cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

However one may be able to study Subcontractors and Commiteesss creation (the known universe) as an example/expression of the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess, especially as the existence of Subcontractors and Commiteess is assumed in the OP.

Hence I conclude that this omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess would be infinitely ‘involved’ in any and every aspect of his creation (the known universe) fully at any and all points of time (with all that this may imply).

As such the known universe could in theory be ‘read as a book’ or ‘story’. The subject of which would be the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess expressed in finite form.

This is a kind of empiricist view I suppose and is to me an interesting line of inquiry.

I appreciate what you say about uses of infinity in math’s. I have little knowledge of such things, however I would think that an omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess if one exists would be far ‘removed/irrevelent’ from/to such work".

 

[HypnoPsi]

A known entity would be preferable, but the problem is that we know a bit too much about the entity in question.

I don't think we really know anything about consciousness. Obviously we can say, to a degree, that conscious self-awareness is what we have when we're not unconscious and that altering the brain alters conscious experience - but how do you know if the "information processing = consciousness" model is really true or if a damaged brain is more like a damaged radio or TV set?

In no case do we find consciousness creating, out of thin air (not even air!) other than non-physical things.

Er...so? We create within our mental fields. Fine by me. I don't particularly want to see what everyone else is thinking hanging around their heads like thought bubbles. The question is whether or not we live within a universe that is itself the mental field of another, much more powerful, consciousness?

If the universe were composed of ideas instead of matter, consciousness would be a good explanation.

You write the above is if you somehow know the true nature of neumenal reality? How do you know neumenal reality is metaphysically/ontologically material?

As I see it all that we really know is that the world is real and regular like clockwork (i.e. it works naturally) and I've yet to see any good argument how we can define any metaphysical position at all as the correct one.

The important thing seems to be to go and find out what we can about the Universe instead of just guessing with what we have on offer so far.

Yet you happily guess above that the universe is material rather than ideal.....?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Right. Again, idealism makes sense if you ignore the Universe. Since it's attempting to explain what the Universe is, this seems counter-productive.

How can the above even make sense to you, Pixy. You acknowledge in the second sentence that idealism is an attempt to explain the Universe, yet you start from the position that it ignores the Universe.....

How can it ignore what it is trying to explain?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Why do you suppose that there's a link at all between information being massless and its requiring an underlying conscious experience to exist?

Why do you suppose that there's a link at all between information being massless and its requiring an underlying non-conscious magical powder/power to exist? Or would you say that the whole Universe is just sense data depending upon us for it's continued existence and has no distinct substrate?

I'm guessing you don't believe it's all just sense data (correct me if I'm wrong).

Remember, I believe very strongly that all metaphysical statements about neumenal reality are theoretical and conjecture - and that includes "God/s" or "Soul Creators" just as much as it includes theoretical non-conscious entities.

And why do you implicitly apply to this consciousness properties such as cohesiveness, singularity, and apparently agency?

Your assumptions are false. I make no suggestion that any consciousness underlying reality is cohesive, singular or has agency. For all I know it could be a collection of conscious entities with multiple personality disorder that are responsible for producing the Universe.

Most of the properties I named so far seem eerily like attempts to project the properties of your own conscious mind upon reality.

Again, your assumptions are wrong. I would imagine whatever does give reality being is very different from me.

In other words, you presume that it's beyond our capability to comprehend a time-like analog working outside of time.

Maybe it, whatever it is, perceives the Universe as one. I wouldn't know.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[punshhh]

Unfortunately, that's the logical fallacy of special pleading. If this God cannot be comprehended by logic (to use your phrase), you can't discuss the topic logically.

And if you abandon logic, then I can just say, Heliobats nya nya I win! Then I get to paint you purple and fire you out of a cannon into the core of a frozen star.

Do you see the problem here?

It's logic, or it's nothing.

I didn't state that this god cannot be comprehended by logic, rather it cannot be comprehended by logic through a hypothetical argument such as the OP.

The logic in my position in that thread was this;

An infinite omnipotent God was a given by the OP,

Logical deduction 1;
This God by definition must be infinitely active(powerful) in its creation (the known universe).

Logical deduction 2;
This creation (the known universe) must inevitably be an expression (by hook or by crook) in infinite detail of this God(as there is nothing else).

Logical deduction 3;
This creation must be a representation/reflection(footprint) of the 'nature' or form of that God in finite form(measurable).

These deductions must be inevitable given a truly infinite omnipotent God.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[laca]

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess”.

In my opinion such a Subcontractors and Commiteess cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

However one may be able to study Subcontractors and Commiteesss creation (the known universe) as an example/expression of the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess, especially as the existence of Subcontractors and Commiteess is assumed in the OP.

Hence I conclude that this omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess would be infinitely ‘involved’ in any and every aspect of his creation (the known universe) fully at any and all points of time (with all that this may imply).

As such the known universe could in theory be ‘read as a book’ or ‘story’. The subject of which would be the nature of Subcontractors and Commiteess expressed in finite form.

This is a kind of empiricist view I suppose and is to me an interesting line of inquiry.

I appreciate what you say about uses of infinity in math’s. I have little knowledge of such things, however I would think that an omnipotent Subcontractors and Commiteess if one exists would be far ‘removed/irrevelent’ from/to such work".

Good one.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I'm certain that I have made no claims regarding the ultimate nature of the universe.

So you accept that the neumenal essence of things is unknowable - good.

Rather, I have drawn conclusions based on observations.

That's called faith and belief. You're welcome to your own faith and beliefs.

Applying Occam's razor leads me to conclude that a mind-independent, consistent, probabilistically predictable universe, the "ultimate nature" of which is a mystery, exists.

So far so good - reality is certainly mind-independent of our conscious minds.

Adding "and the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness" not only adds an unnecessary entity, it flies in the face of the evidence.

Actually, the above should read "and the fundamental nature of the universe is most likely to be a consciousness" (with the added caveat that nothing here suggests any preference for a single God, community of Gods or a soul-creator collective).

But the point here is, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that a lot of people in this forum are actively atheist rather than agnostic and that a lot of atheist groups in society are actively advocating atheism as somehow a better social philosophy.

My questions are directed to that way of thinking. After all, I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of prominent atheist's in western civilisation don't believe the Universe to be nothing more than sense-data. Therefore, the without-God stance is actually a metaphysical affirmation that the Universe instead has some non-conscious neumenal essence.

I'm just pointing out how it's not - at all - more logical to assume this since metaphysical materialism is multiplying unknowns and therefore less parsimonious a theory about reality than a theistic theory which simply says it's probably another conscious entity beind it that can also store, retrieve and create information somewhat like our individual consciousnesses.

I have made no claim regarding anything that produced the universe.

Good for you. And I would hope that you can appreciate that my only claim is that a conscious mind being behind it all is a considerably better theory than the theory that there is a non-conscious self-generating self-perpetuating magic powder/power behind it all.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[punshhh]

And the evidence for the elephant is? Besides a vague complaint about infinity.

My elephant looks like this;

If one takes my definition of infinity;

It is illogical to accept any kind of finite existence as a boundless singularity is unbounded(limitless). There would be no 'space' 'opportunity' 'anywhere any time' for a finite existence.

If one denies this, there are two problems;

1;
If one logically accepts the existence of a finite existence.
Where did this finite existence come from? What is the origin? Did it all pop into existence out of nowhere(finite no where), fully formed?

Illogical

2;
How do you account for a finite existence? you define it and find yourself asking but what is beyond that, or before that? etc etc.

Illogical

The only logical conclusion is that there can be no 'real' existence other than an unbounded singularity.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I think everyone in this thread has said that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality, making it hard to determine who HypnoPsi is arguing against.

Pixy,

I would be very happy to accept this were you and a few others capable of defining clearly what you mean when you use words like matter and materialism. If you're referring only to objective realism that's fine.

But then you write things like this:

"Methodological naturalism works.

That means that metaphysical materialism is true."

As soon as you talk about metaphysics you're talking about neumenal reality (i.e. you're adopting an ontological position).

So, in one post we have you saying "I think everyone in this thread has said that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality" and in another that "metaphysical materialism is true."

Are you two different people rolled into one?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[laca]

I didn't state that this god cannot be comprehended by logic, rather it cannot be comprehended by logic through a hypothetical argument such as the OP.

The logic in my position in that thread was this;

An infinite omnipotent God was a given by the OP,

No, absolutely not. "Infinite" was added by you.

Logical deduction 1;
This God by definition must be infinitely active(powerful) in its creation (the known universe).

Logical deduction 2;
This creation (the known universe) must inevitably be an expression (by hook or by crook) in infinite detail of this God(as there is nothing else).

Logical deduction 3;
This creation must be a representation/reflection(footprint) of the 'nature' or form of that God in finite form(measurable).

These deductions must be inevitable given a truly infinite omnipotent God.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Glad to oblige.

You're wrong and you don't even seem to know what a deduction is.

You started with an invalid assumption (you added "infinite") and just slapped "logical deduction" in front of some gibberish. Sorry, I for one am not impressed.

 

[laca]

And I would hope that you can appreciate that my only claim is that a conscious mind being behind it all is a considerably better theory than the theory that there is a non-conscious self-generating self-perpetuating magic powder/power behind it all.

Shameless strawman aside, care to venture a guess as to where that "conscious mind behind it all" came from? How about why a self-generating self-perpetuating conscious mind is considerably more plausible than non-conscious self-generating self-perpetuating matter?