My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

You do realize what site this is, right? One that advertises a prize of one million dollars for proof of psychic phenomenon? "Look it up" is not a source. No such evidence exists. Please feel free to prove me wrong and provide some links.

Indeed, the specific researchers he cites have been repeatedly upbraided for inadequate controls and improper statistical methods; their results are worthless.

Have to do better, HypnoPsi. Cite a specific case, your best point of evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is one of the reasons why I hate it when people summon up solipsism or, in this case, noumena. It's usually apparent that they have stopped their philosophical studies at a few hundred years in the past. Just like armchair shrinks who stop at Freud.

Worse in this case; if he'd stopped with Hume rather than Kant he would have been pretty much fine. A little behind the times, perhaps, but not filled up with wrongness.

 

[PixyMisa]

No it doesn't, and your say-so doesn't make it true. The problem here is that you are assigning a special value to "consciousness" that the rest of us don't care much for. That's why you're confused: we don't care about the "stuff" of the mind or the universe. To science, only behaviour matters.

Again, no. The theistic model has NO predictive power because it makes no predictions whatsoever. It cannot predict consciousness, either, I'd remind you.

It's just equivocation. We observe consciousness; he postulates something with completely different properties and calls it consciousness.

As you say, it explains nothing, and it only appears parsimonious if you ignore the liberal application of logical fallacies that went into its construction.

 

[SumDood]

Experiments in to psi, like the ganzfeld, generally take a very long time to run and gather all the data points needed and might only end up giving results that are 50:1 against chance.

Would you risk $1 million against a result you know could occur by pure chance alone 1 time in every 50 experiments? I wouldn't - and I wouldn't blame the JREF for not doing so either. But that doesn't mean we should ignore those 50:1 experiments.

Yes, those experiments should be ignored.

Plenty of evidence exists if you bother to look. And I see no reason to play the role of researcher for you.

All I'm asking is that you support your claim. In case you forgot, here it is:

Nope. Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results.

Please provide support or retract your claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[SusanB-M1]

lol... you actually write that like you're proud of it. You probably don't know as much philosophy as you think you do. Have you even heard of Immanuel Kant?

As Robin says in #313, "So, no, the noumena thingy is quite unimportant - ..." and I am pleased to say that, not only had I never heard of the word until quite recently, but have lived a long and interesting life with no need for it at all! True, now that I have learnt more about Philosophy since retirement, I realise it would have been good to study it at an earlier stage, but I do not waste any time regretting this.

So you see, it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find many an atheist supporting your computer program as evidence that your computer actually is conscious.

Do you really believe that any contributors to this forum actually think that any machine can 'think'? Even non-technical people like me know with absolute certainty that all machines are programmed by people.

 

[Malerin]

lol... you actually write that like you're proud of it. You probably don't know as much philosophy as you think you do. Have you even heard of Immanuel Kant?

As Robin says in #313, "So, no, the noumena thingy is quite unimportant - ..." and I am pleased to say that, not only had I never heard of the word until quite recently, but have lived a long and interesting life with no need for it at all! True, now that I have learnt more about Philosophy since retirement, I realise it would have been good to study it at an earlier stage, but I do not waste any time regretting this.

Ignorance is bliss, right?

So you see, it really wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find many an atheist supporting your computer program as evidence that your computer actually is conscious.

Do you really believe that any contributors to this forum actually think that any machine can 'think'? Even non-technical people like me know with absolute certainty that all machines are programmed by people.

Uhhhhhh.

 

[PixyMisa]

Depends on what Susan means by "think". Consciousness in and of itself is much much simpler and much more widespread than human-complexity thought.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ignorance is bliss, right?

Unless you're hung up specifically on Kant, there's no reason to know the term. He popularised it, and when his ideas failed and were abandoned, the word died with him.

And likewise there's no reason to be hung up on Kant, since his ideas did fail and were abandoned.

 

[The Norseman]

Of course they are. Read what I said again.

You said consciousness doesn't create data but is only aware of it. I asked then if dreams are data, to which you said yes.

If I am conscious and I can create a dream (daydream) then consciousness can create data.

So what am I missing?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Depends on what Susan means by "think". Consciousness in and of itself is much much simpler and much more widespread than human-complexity thought.

I'll have to think about that while I'm on the bus to and from Lymington this morning!!

 

[Robin]

Ignorance is bliss, right?

If one is interested in the development of ideas it is probably good to read some Kant and see what he said about this.

But as I said, the term is obsolete.

 

[Robin]

What? Do you really expect me to get all excited over the million dollar prize? When it comes to psi experiements the JREF needs a high signal to noise ratio in a low number of trials for both practical purposes and risk managment.

Experiments in to psi, like the ganzfeld, generally take a very long time to run and gather all the data points needed and might only end up giving results that are 50:1 against chance.

Would you risk $1 million against a result you know could occur by pure chance alone 1 time in every 50 experiments? I wouldn't - and I wouldn't blame the JREF for not doing so either. But that doesn't mean we should ignore those 50:1 experiments.

Dean Radin explained all this on his blog. The cost of winning the JREF prize would go over-buget against the prize itself.

In the Skepticism section of the forum I have outlined a number of experiments which, if the claims of Radin, Bem etc were genuine, would provide overwhelming statistical significance in a single experiment.

Most of them would be expensive but cost less than 1 million. A couple of the ones I have suggested would cost more than the million - but the results of these experiments would profoundly change the course of science and probably win a Nobel prize for the first successful experimenter.

The million dollar prize would only be part of the motivation for this type of experiment.

Imagine, for example, if you could predict the outcome of a quantum random binary result with 80-90% accuracy.

But oddly enough no-one among the paranormal community have even run this idea up the flagpole.

 

[Belz...]

Are you claiming that the world is somehow different than what we perceive in the brain?

Absolutely - in several easily demonstrated ways that are fully accepted by science!

Which is perceived by the brain. Nice try.

 

[Belz...]

1) God's thought/s

or

2) Some non-conscious "stuff"

Now, consciousness and thoughts we all know about since we have them and, obviously (in theory at least), a mind that was powerful and creative enough could "think" about a universe as vast as ours.

It seems to ME like we have two entirely different possibilities:

1) Giant cosmic bulldozers

or

2) Some non-bulldozer "stuff"

Now, bulldozers we all know about since we have them and, obviously (in theory at least), a bulldozer that was powerful enough could "excavate" a universe as vast as ours.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that you think that because minds exist, then they must be fundamental. You are not even considering that minds may simply exist as a combination of physical behaviours, much like "running" or "pankakes". You have simply started with the conclusion that minds are somehow "special" because they are currently not explained to your satisfaction. But you have given no reason for anyone to accept that.

Second, no one is positing some non-conscious "stuff". Science only studies the behaviour of reality. And you still haven't explained what "mind" is made of.

Either way, there are no unknown entities being multiplied here. Minds are known to us.

So are bulldozers.

The idea this is somehow more parsimonious than God (a conscious mind) clearly has a few problems.

And somehow, only you spotted that. You're not the one who'll revolutionise science anytime soon, Hypno.

 

[Belz...]

Plenty of evidence exists if you bother to look.

"I have evidence but I can't be bothered to give it to you".

Sure thing, Hypno.

 

[Belz...]

How do you know that?

Exactly. Maybe the sky really IS blue.

 

[Belz...]

What? Do you really expect me to get all excited over the million dollar prize? When it comes to psi experiements the JREF needs a high signal to noise ratio in a low number of trials for both practical purposes and risk managment.

I wondered how long it would take you to accuse the foundation of fraud.

Experiments in to psi, like the ganzfeld, generally take a very long time to run and gather all the data points needed and might only end up giving results that are 50:1 against chance.

And yet, after 150+ years, no positive results. Oh, wait...

Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results.

Name one.

 

[Belz...]

You said consciousness doesn't create data but is only aware of it. I asked then if dreams are data, to which you said yes.

If I am conscious and I can create a dream (daydream) then consciousness can create data.

So what am I missing?

The very obvious fact that consciousness doesn't actually create anything. Dreams are not created by consciousness. They are observed by it. They are created by the brain, which also produces consciousness.

Your consciousness is only aware of your own decisions after said decisions have been made, so it doesn't really do anything except "being conscious". You were confusing "consciousness" with "The Norseman", I think.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Thoughts while on the bus:

If the Russians manage to vacuum up something from that entirely enclosed lake way below Antartica, without polluting it with even the smallest atomand
If this includes some small artefact that appears to think, and
If such a procedure is closely supervised by a dozen top, trustworthy scientists at every stage, and
If there was a conclusion that there was zero human input,

then I would still be very sceptical about it!

 

[SusanB-M1]

I should add '... zero human input, however far back one traced the source...'