I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Well, the reason why you might think you don't know any dualist (first part of your post) is because you obviously don't know what the word means (second part).

Dualism is miss-guided and can be viewed as monist from an alternative perspective, always.

 

[tsig]

Dualism is miss-guided and can be viewed as monist from an alternative perspective, always.

Run by a bunch of feminists then?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even if she is correct less than "all the time" ie say 75% or 35% it could only be coincidence in a belief system where such things "...do not happen."

I asked her family and friends if it really was true she is correct "all the time". They agreed it is true.

Is 100% required or is some lower rate of accuracy worthy of consideration?

Enter your garage with caution.

The exact random rate is difficult to determine, for several reasons:

- How many different kinds of dinner are there to choose from (most families cycle between less than a dozen different courses)?

- What is the distribution of those courses (in most families a few courses count for the majority of dinners)?

- How close does the guess have to be a hit (you mentioned eggplant; I know of at least 15 different ways to prepare eggplant)?

- How well does the person know the families in question (and thus their preferred meals)?

Anyway, I would think that the random value should be well below 50%, so for a preliminary test, a result over 50% ought to count as significant. 100% certainly is.

However, as you must have understood, nobody here is willing to accept a result merely from hearsay, but we could easily help you design a simple test, if you would like.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Merely asking, hypothetically, how one can be sure such things do not happen.

Or could not happen.

1) Because similar claims have been tested many times, and the result is invariably negative.

2) An ability to somehow know what was happening far away (without modern technology) would be immensely valuable to those posessing it. even knowing what they were having for dinner. If even a few people posessed such a power, we would surely know about it (and it would not be used for guessing dinners ).

3) The laws of physics do not support the notion, and we have yet to show ANY kind of instance where the laws of physics do not apply.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dualism is miss-guided and can be viewed as monist from an alternative perspective, always.

Another belief of yours, presented as if it is a fact? You know, that is a really nasty habit, at least if you want others to take you seriously.

Hans

 

[dlorde]

Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

No; a single instance is clearly insufficient. There are a number of ways the patient could have had prior knowledge of the note. The most obvious is that the patient was the electrician that left the note. Try and see how many other possibilities you can come up with.

 

[Belz...]

Dualism is miss-guided and can be viewed as monist from an alternative perspective, always.

Correction: dualism is inconsistent. But it's not a monism.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Alright. Lets try this again, cause I really don't roll with the endless, semantic debates that lead nowhere:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world they live with, using nothing but their mind?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Alright. Lets try this again, cause I really don't roll with the endless, semantic debates that lead nowhere:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world they live with, using nothing but their mind?

I just commanded my fingers to type.

Sorry, your question did not deserve a sassy answer, but a mood is upon me.

 

[Dancing David]

Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

No, you haven't presented an alternative.

 

[The Man]

Alright. Lets try this again, cause I really don't roll with the endless, semantic debates that lead nowhere:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world they live with, using nothing but their mind?

Well, the thing is, while not addressing the apparent intent of your question, that with the “mind” as a particular form of self-referential processing based on physical materials it does have to have some physical influence by that processing. Which is to say that if I intentionally perhaps start to think sad or happy thoughts, neurochemical processes can shift where I now start to feel happy or sad. An element of method acting, using your mind to create the emotions or feelings within yourself that you want to portray. Exactly how much of what physical changes occur is probably more to your question (like the car parked in your driveway question) but a mind based on physical properties is going to have physical consequences, particularly in the self-referential and self-influential processing. Again not exactly what you were asking but a physical material based mind has to exert physical and material influences as well as respond to, being dependent entirely upon, them.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, the thing is, while not addressing the apparent intent of your question, that with the “mind” as a particular form of self-referential processing based on physical materials it does have to have some physical influence by that processing. Which is to say that if I intentionally perhaps start to think sad or happy thoughts, neurochemical processes can shift where I now start to feel happy or sad. An element of method acting, using your mind to create the emotions or feelings within yourself that you want to portray. Exactly how much of what physical changes occur is probably more to your question (like the car parked in your driveway question) but a mind based on physical properties is going to have physical consequences, particularly in the self-referential and self-influential processing. Again not exactly what you were asking but a physical material based mind has to exert physical and material influences as well as respond to, being dependent entirely upon, them.

Yes. Thank you. So considering you both understand what I'm asking and also see the fault in accurately narrowing the definition of my question, do you think you could help me rephrase it in a better way?

 

[punshhh]

What if you have the appearance of knowing something, but really lack the quality of knowing in an of itself.

Something knows something and I am privy to it. There can't be knowing without a knower.

 

[punshhh]

The it is intellectually dishonest of you to constantly refer to it as if it was a fact.

I didn't say it was a fact, indeed I have strenuously pointed out that we don't know what the reality is.

It is something you believe. You have no evidence for it, and quite frankly you don't appear to understand the evidence against it.

It is not a belief, it is just an idea considered while contemplating reality. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the evidence, as you say does not address it. The only scientific understanding of consciousness is in relation to the brand of sentient self-consciousness found in humans and the precise cause of consciousness in a human is not known. Going on about how the brain processes vast amounts of information enabling the phenomena of self-consciousness in a human does not explain what generates consciousness, only how it is enabled to carry out complex tasks.

We know how to build a computer using biological components. Mind you, it is not alive as such, but the components are biological.

Yes, it would be interesting if a biological construct could be made conscious, or whether it would always remain a "zombie".

Are you asking if we can build an electronic computer? The answer is yes.

I was asking, can we build a conscious electronic computer? Is this a maybe, or a definite?

Another belief of yours, presented as if it is a fact? You know, that is a really nasty habit, at least if you want others to take you seriously.

Perhaps you should revise your opinion of me. I have stated many times that I hold no beliefs about anything. And the only fact I would present is that something exists.

 

[punshhh]

Alright. Lets try this again, cause I really don't roll with the endless, semantic debates that lead nowhere:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world they live with, using nothing but their mind?

Its an interesting question, because minds do change lots of things in the world using their (attached) body. Perhaps this where the confusion lies.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say it was a fact, indeed I have strenuously pointed out that we don't know what the reality is.

Would it make a difference if I point out that that's irrelevant ?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ok, how about this?:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world outside of their own body, using ONLY their mind? (No hands, mouth or any other part of the body allowed)

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Ok, how about this?:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world outside of their own body, using ONLY their mind? (No hands, mouth or any other part of the body allowed)

OK, now you're talking. One test might be the ability for a lone test subject to move an object that is out of reach and without any physical manipulation, while being filmed from another room. Setup would require full vetting of the object to avoid any use of magnets or alternate means of any kind, etc. But as a magic trick via illusion, we've all seen it done.

I won't be holding my breath. If no one has claimed J. Randi´s longstanding million dollar prize yet, that's a pretty good indication they never will, apart from the impossible physics of such things.

(Debt paid for earlier sass on the alpha version. Only fair, I reckon.)

 

[LarryS]

Ok, how about this?:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world outside of their own body, using ONLY their mind? (No hands, mouth or any other part of the body allowed)

(I'm just passing through) You are assuming there's a physical material world, which is incompatible with what I think is the root of your question. As far as the question at face value, the only person(s) I know who would make such a claim are the 'spoon benders'.

 

[Dancing David]

Alright. Lets try this again, cause I really don't roll with the endless, semantic debates that lead nowhere:

What would be an irrefutable demonstration that any human being could perform right now in their homes or wherever they are, to demonstrate how they can change anything about the physical, material world they live with, using nothing but their mind?

Cognitive behavioral therapy?