As usual, II is using his 'quantity over quality' posting system, and attempting to usurp a thread to push his own lunacy...
But what the heck. Let's play.
Debunked the idea we have experiences?? Nothing you could possibly say will convince me that I am not conscious.
And I never said so. I know your memory is brief, but the stance I took was that consciousness exists, being the sum of a series of physical and energy reactions within the human brain. Therefore, it exists... therefore, we have experiences. Not debunking that, you loony, just your view on what experience and consciousness is.
a) You do not experience consciousness. Experience is consciousness. You can argue you "experience" your own self, but a materialist must reject the notion of such a self.
Experience may be consciousness, but it is still something intrinsic to the action-reaction system within the human brain. We experience and are conscious of things. Our sum total of experiences is a series of reactions inside the human mind.
Materialism doesn't reject the self, only that the self is somehow seperate from material systems. In fact, materialism properly identifies the self as being part and parcel of materialism - since material must either be observable or affect the universe in some way, the self is required for the materialist to perceive that material. This is not to say that material experience is objective, but that the theorem of materialism requires a theorist.
b) Your statement that consciousness is not material, is equivalent to saying that consciousness is material. I have shown this to be false on numerous occasions. Allow me to paste in what I've said before.
I never said consciousness is not material. YOU are the one claiming an immaterial consciousness. And you're rebuttal has itself been thoroughly taken apart by people far wiser than me.
But to make a long series of arguments short, phenomenological consciousness is a sum of physical interactions of physical phenomena (or energy phenomena - let us agree that energy/matter is the same thing for the purpose of this conversation). It is therefore reproducable and duplicatable.
The materialist doesn't have to concede anything, in spite of your arrogant attempt to claim that necessity, because the materialist knows that all that can be experienced, including experience itself, can and eventually will be analyzed and replicated. That we cannot do so now is irrelevant.
Take, for example, the sensation of pain. We can in fact take a measurement (in the future, of course) of the exact reactions caused when a painful stimulus is applied to a person; we can map these out and study them to the final moment, and then duplicate said patterns in another brain. Thus, two people will have the exact same sensation of that pain.
At this point, you might argue that each would subjectively experience the pain in different ways, but even that so-called difference lies in a series of actions and reactions stored in the body/brain over the lifetime of that individual. In fact, given sufficient time, we will be able to replicate an individual including the effects of all experiences of said individual - perfect cloning - in which case every experience he has will be IDENTICAL to the source individual.. including his reactions to said experiences.
This is materialism extended to its logical extreme.
If consciousness were so flimsy and immaterial, why can we be so certain of anything? We know, for example, that when we paint a room red, that others will see a red room. Those that don't we know, from material sciences, suffer from color-blindness or disorders of the brain - all material causes of perceptual error. And since we know that red is the refraction of a certain wavelength of light, we further know that the color will never change in and of itself based solely on perception, only the individual's perception of that color - which is based entirely on material experience.
Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.
This is only your opinion - and not a very good opinion at that. What we are saying is, that qualitative data will be derived - are derived - from structure and function. But you're dealing purely with physics... other quantitative sciences exist as well, you know. In fact, I'm trying to find the article, but scientists are determining the quantitative data on qualitative experience as regards taste at the moment... Seems they are already tracing the paths and such that cause one person to prefer one flavor over another, and are having some success at doing so. We already know, for example, why chocolate is so popular, and why it soothes women so... Likewise, we know how the sight of the color red can trigger aggression in some people, and why blue and green soothe the mind.
Psychology and sociology are slowly combining with harder sciences to create a picture absolutely abhorrent to immaterialists and the faithful, as more and more of your cherished illusions are stripped away. If consciousness is so immaterial, why will one drug alter your consciousness one way and another another way, in predictable patterns? We know, for example, that Ritalin (in spite of its problems) allows ADHD students to focus and think more clearly - it enhances consciousness. Druggies know that some drugs make you see things and others seem to slow or speed up time for you... Again, predictable alterations in experience. And, to a small extent, scientists are learning WHY and HOW this is done - they are quantifying qualitative experiences... and eventually, it will all fall before the axe of science.
Materialism is refuted. It's a stone cold fact.
Not even close, Irritating Ian. Not even close.
It's about as much 'fact' as that little book written by all those dead lunatics.
It doesn't seem to me that you understood that you are clearly wrong. Read my post above.
Read it... Same back at ya, loony.
What confused nonsense is this?? What does "observable by science" mean. Contrary to what you say, if some existent does not follow physical laws, then that is extremely interesting.
Yes, of course it is extremely interesting - and science then studies it thoroughly until it can adjust its knowledge of physical laws to accomodate the new phenomenon. However, what UG was saying was that something not at all observable by science is a non-existent thing, and therefore of no consequence. Like unicorns, faery dust, or your brain.
LMAO!! Oh dear It never fails to astound me the utterly preposterous nonsense that people believe in. So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .
No, that's not at all what I'm proposing - rather, that the 'consciousness' which you hold to be sooooo precious is the result of the chemical and energy reactions within our brain from our senses. We already know that our senses can be fooled, and that our brain can be told that things are there which are not... therefore, what Rad was claiming was that everything we experience comes filtered through the sense organs and, even worse, through the brain, which might well be lied to. Life may be an illusion... I doubt sincerely that it is, of course, but it is a possibility that is impossible to refute.
Nowhere did I claim to believe in this nonsense. It never fails to astound me how some people will misquote other people.
Now, a brief pause to address Iacchus...
You say the human mind is an instrument which can detect God. Given that concept, then we must also accept the reality of unicorns, dragons, faeries, witches who fly on brooms, other Gods, water turning to blood, moons made of green cheese, alternate universes where demons rule, and anything else we can imagine.
The human mind is an instrument which can imagine God, but not detect God. God has never once been verified as existing, and as an instrument, the human mind is notoriously faulty. So, try again.
As for your second statement,
God permeates everything and in that sense affects the whole material universe.
I agree. Therefore, no single instance of God's direct interaction is possible.
Is not energy the precursor to matter?
Actually, no. Matter and energy are interchangeable properties... It appears uncertain to some whether matter came first, or energy, but this is really a chicken-and-egg argument. Saying energy is the precursor to matter assumes that matter cannot revert to energy. Small point, though.
Without the instrument of the human mind, what purpose would Science serve? So we should be careful not to let the tail wag the dog.
Without the human mind to create Science, Science would not exist - but this concept is entirely beside the point. And you're the one wagging the heck outta that poor Doberman..
Back to Uninteresting Ian...
We have not devised any mechanism for observing minds either. I ain't gonna start disbelieving in the existence of my own though.
Actually, the mechanism of communication allows us to observe minds, therefore belief in the existence of minds is logical. It's not the most perfect mechanism, but it's a primitive tool. More advanced communications are being and will be developed to address this.
You do understand don't you that materialism implies not just the non-existence of God's mind, but all minds whatsoever?? Yet clearly we do have minds. This entails that your argument is flawed. Minds/consciousness exists. If finite minds exist there is no obvious conceptual hurdle to supposing an infinite mind; at least not from this angle.
Your philosophy extends outward from a flawed base. Materialism allows for minds quite easily - as I've said repeatedly. Thus, your rebuttal is fundamentally flawed.
Show me ONE example of your consciousness affecting the material Universe in some way. No? Does this mean your consciousness doesn't exist??
This is ridiculous. ANYONE ANYWHERE can show you MILLIONS of examples of consciousness affecting the material universe. IN fact, the very words you are reading RIGHT NOW are an obvious effect of my consciousness on the material universe - as I think these thoughts, the biomechanism of my fingers translate thought into physical motion, transferring kinetic energy to the keys which, in turn, close connections on electronic and silica bits, allowing new patterns of energy to flow...
And so forth...
Until the light emitted by your moniter filters through your optic sensors and into that pulsing grey mass where, undoubtably, it will become lost in fantasies of reality.
But that statement was sheer stupidity at its finest. I must assume you're very tired or very ill... that statement was dull, even for you.
Show me the theorem whereupon your consciousness should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.
Point. What I was saying is that at times, physical laws require the existence of something we have no prior knowledge of to work properly. God has never come up in these laws so far (as far as we know, assuming God isn't the sum of the other dimensions). But, likewise, human consciousness hasn't either... nor has the ham and bacon sandwich, so point taken.
And if we had a soul, wouldn't that be immaterial as well? In which case yes, we do have the means by which to detect the immaterial.
Actually, Iacchus, your own statement refutes itself. "If we had a soul" implies uncertainty, i.e. we cannot detect the soul. If the soul is immaterial, then it cannot be detected.
However, I assert the soul is MATERIAL - Yes, children, the soul is material. Why? Because we can see the effects of the soul (life-force, whatever) on the material world. AND - I further assert that the Soul is present in all that has life... and possibly (though this is going WAAAY out there) in things that we believe do NOT have life.
Thus, we may soon observe and quantify the soul - That we lack the means at the moment means nothing.
But the very definition of immaterial refutes any detection, so any time anyone says 'detect the immaterial' they are speaking in paradox.
Nothing you could possibly say will convince me that I am not conscious.
