My argument against materialism

[AlBell]

Idealism is just the addition of another fundamental reality underneath that for no reason whatsoever.

Idealism names the only 'fundamental reality' that will ever exist for me, and for you.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Then how can it be comprehended?

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).

Non-sequitur.

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).

Non-sequitur.

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

Impossibly vague.

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

No. Two don't follow at all, and the third doesn't tell us anything.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong.

The Universe is very nearly isotropic, and was almost perfectly balanced between matter and anti-matter - a tiny, tiny asymmetry between the two initially resulted in what we regard as the Universe today.

The early Universe was nothing but a superheated superdense rapidly expanding plasma. As it expanded, it cooled, and slowly clumped together to form nebulae and then stars and galaxies and planets and dust.

The details you are familiar with today are simply the product of time, random chance, and the laws of physics.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If, at a more accurate level of examination, the universe can be described as (a very large quantity of) massless information then we have to ask ourselves what kind of existence can information even have without some consciousness or other experiencing it?

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?

You're dodging the question. Note that in the post I asked about, you had a conditional. I highlighted it for you. In your reply, you are... well, I have no freaking clue what you're doing.

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 didn't say anything at all. Now you're speculating not only about there being a link between information being massless and the need to

ask ourselves what kind of existence can information even have without some consciousness or other experiencing it

...but you're also:

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

I'm afraid your reply isn't helping me to understand why you phrased the conditional that I highlighted in this post as a conditional. Usually when someone says "if X, then Y", then that person presumes that X has some sort of relationship to Y.

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.

That's what makes the quote I repeated and highlighted so confusing--that quote presumes that there's a relationship between the thing you if'd, and the thing you then'd. If you really do genuinely believe very strongly that all metaphysical statements about neumenal reality are theoretical and conjecture, then how can you make such a statement--for example, the quote that I repeated?

Your assumptions are false. I make no suggestion that any consciousness underlying reality is cohesive, singular or has agency.

I'm referring to this:

And what would time even mean to a conscious God-being ...

To me, in this reading, "to" implies cohesiveness; "what does the trinity mean to Christians", for example, implies that there's something about Christians that is cohesive enough for the question to make sense. "A" implies singular--I hope that needs no explanation. "Being" strongly suggests in this context agency. I'm interpreting all of this as part of what we presumably have to ask ourselves if information is massless. And I interpret explicit voluntary sharing of information by a person as having some sort of motivation--when put into a context, I assume shared motivation. In this light, I can only assume that the reason you started speculating about this singular coherent being was that you felt it was somehow relevant to what you said we have to ask ourselves.

I'm wondering why we have to ask ourselves anything if information is massless, personally, but you're the one who is saying we have to ask ourselves questions such as what time is like to God if information is massless.

All I'm asking for is for you to take this opportunity to explain this apparent contradiction in your views.

Again, your assumptions are wrong. I would imagine whatever does give reality being is very different from me.
...
Maybe it, whatever it is, perceives the Universe as one. I wouldn't know.

Sure. Okay. So let's start over.

Why, if:

the universe can be described as (a very large quantity of) massless information

..do:

we have to ask ourselves what kind of existence can information even have without some consciousness or other experiencing it?

...and how does this:

And what would time even mean to a conscious God-being that was outside of spacetime?

...relate, in any way, with what we have to ask, and why?

 

[dlorde]

What empirical observation does not tell us - and cannot tell us - is the true neumenal essence of things. Consequently, all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture and theory.

So now we're left with the choice of a purely hypothetical non-conscious magic stuff (that we've never seen anything like) behind it all or a conscious mind behind it all (and we all have conscious minds).

Er, no - if all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture, we're left with "We don't and can't know". Occam's Razor is all very well, but the limitations of consciousness that we observe suggest that a speculative conscious mind 'behind it all' would be such a different kind of thing that it would itself be an unnecessary additional entity - particularly as consciousness, as we observe it, appears to require a specialised physical substrate to generate and support it. So why even propose such a thing?

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly, it's a false dichotomy and a double strawman.

On the one hand, we observe a physical Universe that we are part of; perhaps it in turn is part of some larger physical system - a multiverse, the interaction between infinite membranes, an energetic bubble in an infinite sea of space-time. We may be able to rule out some of these ideas, insofar as they are formulated with sufficient specificity as to make predictions of the nature of our own corner of reality.

On the other hand, we know that consciousness is a property of material systems, so conjuring up another, infinite consciousness as the basis of material reality when all observable consciousnesses work the exact opposite way is the very definition of absurdity.

On the third hand, it is very likely that it is impossible to know, and only the most rigorously-formed hypotheses are of any interest at all because at least we can falsify those.

 

[HypnoPsi]

You're dodging the question. Note that in the post I asked about, you had a conditional. I highlighted it for you. In your reply, you are... well, I have no freaking clue what you're doing.

I'm not dodging the question - I'm just not playing a one sided game. If the Universe is massless information then that seems to me very much like sense-data - except that the Universe very clearly exists when I'm not thinking about it. Therefore it's not hard to imagine why there should be another sensor to sense the data (i.e. a consciousness behind the Universe.)

What thesis would you defend? Metaphysical materialsm or none at all? If it's none at all then just take my answer that I am absent the belief in any non-conscious magic stuff as standard.

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 didn't say anything at all.

I'm asking you.

That's what makes the quote I repeated and highlighted so confusing--that quote presumes that there's a relationship between the thing you if'd, and the thing you then'd. If you really do genuinely believe very strongly that all metaphysical statements about neumenal reality are theoretical and conjecture, then how can you make such a statement--for example, the quote that I repeated?

Very easily. While we certainly do have to accept that all metaphysical statements about neumenal reality are ultimately theoretical and conjecture we can still examine which of those metaphysical statements best fit the few details we have.

The answer is very clearly something with a consciousness in the background, like theistic phenomenalism, rather than suggesting some magic fairy dust or other that is pure conjecture (unlike consciousness which we all know to exist).

Quote: And what would time even mean to a conscious God-being ...

To me, in this reading, "to" implies cohesiveness; "what does the trinity mean to Christians", for example, implies that there's something about Christians that is cohesive enough for the question to make sense. "A" implies singular--I hope that needs no explanation. "Being" strongly suggests in this context agency. I'm interpreting all of this as part of what we presumably have to ask ourselves if information is massless.

If the best you can do is act as if any rhetorical question I ask is akin to my making a statement of fact and suggest that I'm accusing you of saying things when I'm very clearly asking you for your answer then your debating skills aren't nearly as impressive as you seem to think.

For all I know it's a collection of conscious beings underlying the Universe. And I still say that we cannot comprehend what time would be like to a being (or beings) that are outside of spacetime. So there is little point in asking me to explain that which I believe we cannot comprehend.

The only reason I ask what kind of existence can massless information have without some consciousness or other experiencing it is because, to me, it's a very interesting question.

The fact that you've chosen to focus on my statement "we have to ask ourselves" instead of actually answering any questions I've put to you is rather odd.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[AlBell]

On the other hand, we know that consciousness is a property of material systems,

We know that 'our' consciousness depends on our respective brain; your statement is otherwise meaningless.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Er, no - if all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture, we're left with "We don't and can't know".

Are you accusing me of ever saying that "We do" or "Can know"? If so where? I would think I've been very clear in my statemet, that you quoted yourself "all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture and theory.

Occam's Razor is all very well,

Hand waving.

but the limitations of consciousness that we observe suggest that a speculative conscious mind 'behind it all' would be such a different kind of thing that it would itself be an unnecessary additional entity - particularly as consciousness, as we observe it, appears to require a specialised physical substrate to generate and support it. So why even propose such a thing?

Again, horse before cart.... and "appears". You have no idea if neural activity creates or is equivalent to consciousness or if, perhaps, consciousness just likes brains.

All you really know about what you term a "physical substrate" is that it's something that seems to exist and work independently of your beliefs (realism).

And you seem genuinely confused by the statement "behind it all". Let me ask you: do you believe that reality is all just sense data that requires your existence for it's own existence? Since your post strongly suggests you wouldn't believe this, is it not therefore a given that your whole model of the world, your sense of things like debth, weight, colour, size, distance, etc., are all produced in your mind-brain as a result of it processing sensory input and that you don't actually experience any 'thing-in-itself'?

So, you see, the question I am asking is what's the best candidate theory to explain the true neumenal nature of things in themselves?

There are no additional entities here since we're asking about the nature of that neumenal entity which causes "things in themselves" to exist.

The idea that it's some unknown fancy magic powder stuff (i.e. metaphysical materialism) just doesn't cut it when compared to the alternative theory that there is another consciousness "behind it all" (since we all know intimately that consciousness exists and can indeed store, retrieve and create information).

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

On the other hand, we know that consciousness is a property of material systems, so conjuring up another, infinite consciousness as the basis of material reality when all observable consciousnesses work the exact opposite way is the very definition of absurdity.

On the third hand, it is very likely that it is impossible to know, and only the most rigorously-formed hypotheses are of any interest at all because at least we can falsify those.

Pixy, your hopeless attempts to sneak in metaphysical materialism through semantics is an aboslute delight to watch.

I sincerely do hope you realise what you're doing as all the mental gymnastics it would take to really convince yourself of this belief must require a lot of effort to sustain.

No matter how much you pretend otherwise the true nature of neumenal reality will still be an unknown - and both the non-conscious magic stuff theory and the consciousness theory will both still be candiates for that exact same unknown true nature of neumenal reality.

And, of course, consciousness will always be the better theory as it's just... well... much more parsimonious.

Why does that unsettle you? I mean, we're all accepting it's all just theory?

Is it the inconvenient fact (for you) that it's the better theory that annoys you?

Or, is the fact that it means atheism is actually a belief system that requires a greater committment of belief than theism that bugs you?

It must be so disheartening for you and the others in this group who share a view similar to yours to actually be able to see the glaring holes in your own arguments every time you hit the "submit reply" button and - at the exact same time - know that there's really nothing more you can do except hide behind weak semantic arguments.

If you find the above too rough, try to see the positive side of it - namely, that I'm quite convinced that you're not really so dim that you can't actually see for yourself how empty and utterly pointless your semantic arguments are.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[punshhh]

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















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.

ref post 634, 'omnipotence a serious question'

I quote Mattus Maximus;

"Ah, thanks tsig.

I was wondering how long it would take for the discussion to turn to the issue of Cantor sets

So, if we define "omnipotent" to mean "infinitely powerful", I wonder what the implications are in the context of Cantor's mathematics? Here's a link to get that discussion started".

From that point on in the thread I was taking infinite omnipotence as read.

Refering to your previous post in reply to me, When I refered to GWIMW as a smoke and mirrors, I was thinking of the way that the skeptics have shouted "GWIMW", without justifying it, as a double bluff. Followed by "why are you wasting our time".

 

[punshhh]

Then how can it be comprehended?


Non-sequitur.


Non-sequitur.


Impossibly vague.


No. Two don't follow at all, and the third doesn't tell us anything.


You're wrong.

The Universe is very nearly isotropic, and was almost perfectly balanced between matter and anti-matter - a tiny, tiny asymmetry between the two initially resulted in what we regard as the Universe today.

The early Universe was nothing but a superheated superdense rapidly expanding plasma. As it expanded, it cooled, and slowly clumped together to form nebulae and then stars and galaxies and planets and dust.

The details you are familiar with today are simply the product of time, random chance, and the laws of physics.

I will hold your hand and take you through the three steps this evening, I don't have time right now.

Yes, I agree with your fine description of how the universe formed.

Where did it come from?
Where did the laws of physics come from?

 

[Dancing David]

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

And what other models explain the evidence? Naturalism is what it is, I could imagine myself teleporting, so far I have seen no evidence for teleportaion of myself. Now I do have evidence that I can apparently motivate a number of ways that do not include teleportation.

 

[Dancing David]

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

What do you think this means, it is not standard use of terminology. Sigularity is a mathematical descrption of the place where QM and GR break down.

The existance and nature of the gravitational black holes is consistent.
The nature of space time in the singularity is currently not understood and is part of GUT. (Which we do not have)

So what essence/idea are you reffering to?

What sort of singularity are you reffering to?

 

[Dancing David]

Where did the laws of physics come from?

the current theory is that they represent the lowest energy in the fields.

But "I don't know" is always a great answer as well.

Some questions have no answers.

We currently can only speculate as to the nature of reality at t < 10 ^-36 seconds after the BBE.

 

[gentlehorse]

My opinion before I joined this forum has not changed;

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

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

What is the difference between something for which there can be no evidence and something that doesn't exist? (It's a rhetorical question.)

You seem to be claiming that something exists that is not detectable, even in principle. What, aside from your imagination, leads you to make such a statement?

It is also blind to any considerations of how we got here, if we actually are here and if being here makes sense or can be justified intellectually.

It isn't blind to considerations of how we got here. It's silent where there is no evidence. There is a difference.

That we are here is axiomatic. (Well, that I am here is axiomatic. Not so sure about the rest of you-- )

How do you intellectually justify "being here"? Does it involve assuming that we are here for a reason?

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.

No. It is a means of separating sense from nonsense.

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.

I have come to the conclusion that many people make up explanations for the existence of the universe and believe in them regardless of the extent to which they are accurate reflections of the universe. Cooperating and refining arguments for positions based on beliefs for which there is no evidence is a complete and utter waste of time (unless it gets you laid or paid).

 

[dlorde]

Are you accusing me of ever saying that "We do" or "Can know"? If so where?

Did you read my post? Did I say that? If so, where?

etc., etc.

 

[punshhh]

What do you think this means, it is not standard use of terminology. Sigularity is a mathematical descrption of the place where QM and GR break down.

The existance and nature of the gravitational black holes is consistent.
The nature of space time in the singularity is currently not understood and is part of GUT. (Which we do not have)

So what essence/idea are you reffering to?

What sort of singularity are you reffering to?

Unfortunately I will not have much time to post until Monday. It will also give me the opportunity to refine my definitions.

My terminology comes from a spiritual/mystical background, I am still grappling with the terminology generally used on this site.

 

[punshhh]

What is the difference between something for which there can be no evidence and something that doesn't exist? (It's a rhetorical question.)

You seem to be claiming that something exists that is not detectable, even in principle. What, aside from your imagination, leads you to make such a statement?



It isn't blind to considerations of how we got here. It's silent where there is no evidence. There is a difference.

That we are here is axiomatic. (Well, that I am here is axiomatic. Not so sure about the rest of you-- )

How do you intellectually justify "being here"? Does it involve assuming that we are here for a reason?




No. It is a means of separating sense from nonsense.



I have come to the conclusion that many people make up explanations for the existence of the universe and believe in them regardless of the extent to which they are accurate reflections of the universe. Cooperating and refining arguments for positions based on beliefs for which there is no evidence is a complete and utter waste of time (unless it gets you laid or paid).

I will consider your questions over the weekend, as I am quite busy and wont have much time until Monday.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Pixy

The logic in my position in that thread was this;

An infinite omnipotent God was a given by the OP,

A; Omnipotent=all powerful
B; infinite omnipotence=every and all powers add infinitum (literally everything).

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

ie; I can see no logical justification for this God not to be fully active (all powerful) in every minute detail of his creation.

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).

ie; I can see no logical justification to consider that there could be any other agency(creator). This leads me to no other conclusion than God was responsible for everything. As such I see no reason to doubt that something of Gods 'nature' expressed in the form and make up of the creation.


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

ie; I conclude that if there is a footprint of some kind of the 'nature' in the creation. That there may be evidence of 'infinite things' expressed in finite forms. For example the laws of physics perhaps. An expression of the 'mind of God'

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

Correct me if I am wrong.

Pixy,

I don't know what kind of logical step would follow for your requirements. I will add some and await your response (see above)

 

[laca]

ref post 634, 'omnipotence a serious question'

I quote Mattus Maximus;

"Ah, thanks tsig.

I was wondering how long it would take for the discussion to turn to the issue of Cantor sets

So, if we define "omnipotent" to mean "infinitely powerful", I wonder what the implications are in the context of Cantor's mathematics? Here's a link to get that discussion started".

From that point on in the thread I was taking infinite omnipotence as read.

That was not in the OP. Also, it's preceded by an "if". Hardly "given in the OP"...

Refering to your previous post in reply to me, When I refered to GWIMW as a smoke and mirrors, I was thinking of the way that the skeptics have shouted "GWIMW", without justifying it, as a double bluff. Followed by "why are you wasting our time".

Please point to a post where you feel you have been wrongly "accused" of resorting to GWIMW.