My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

I wonder why it is that those who wish to posit a non-conscious magic entity as responsible for neumenal reality being real, whatever and wherever such a thing is, or is imagined to be, need so very many words to do so?

You might be better off taking up the point with them, whoever they might be.

 

[HypnoPsi]

The question is whether or not we live within a universe that is itself the mental field of another, much more powerful, consciousness?

Why is that the question?

Because noumenal reality exists. Are you not even remotely curious about that?

The light that hits our eyes that allows us to construct our 3D perspective of the world has been in contact with something real and independent of your conscious mind. (Simply leaving a clock in an empty room and forgetting about it for a while before you return to examine it demonstrates this.)

Do you have any evidence it's true? Sounds like one of those "Why is there air" questions.

Each one of us has our own unique piece of evidence that consciousness exists - and that consciousness can create, store and retrieve information. Indeed, we can create entire worlds in our minds.

There may very well be some non-conscious self-perpetuating and self-generating magic power and/or power that is the cause of noumenal reality being and/or existing - but nobody knows for sure.

My question is why should anyone choose to put their faith and belief in this option (i.e. atheism) when we already have something that we know can create a reality within itself (conscious minds)?

Clearly the theory that the Universe is created inside another conscious mind (theism) is the better theory.

I think the whole question about the true noumenal nature of reality is a very reasonable question and central to many issues today.

Currently we have groups and individuals actively promoting atheism as somehow better than theism in terms of such things as, understanding the nature of the Universe, social philosophy, morals, etc.,.

Indeed, quite a few have jumped out of the closet kicking and screaming about how bad they believe religion and theism are.

The funny thing is, upon examination, it turns out that atheism is just another belief system that won't and can't examine it's own foundation and requires the unwavering and unthinking faith of its adherents and handwaving en masse to sustain itself.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

What in the blue hell is the "neumenal" (wasn't it noumenal, before ?) ?

Noumena refers to what things are, explicitly separate from pheonmena, what things do.

I don't know who HypnoPsi thinks he is addressing, because most of the people in this thread don't even consider that a meaningful distinction, and have said so repeatedly.

 

[HypnoPsi]

You're right in one thing: It is semantics.

You're wrong in absolutely everything else.

I'm not trying to "sneak" anything in anywhere. I explained very clearly and specifically how we come to the conclusion that metaphysical materialism is correct.

Ah... you've finally reached that stage of your ahem... debating skills. First, you obfuscate and conflate with something akin to a religious fervour and then you announce that you actually have explained your answer "clearly and specifically". It took you longer to reach that stage this time than it usually does, Pixy.

Simply put, again: If all we can know is what things do, then what things are is what they do. Since what things do is, by observation, material stuff, metaphysical materialism is established as correct, albeit slightly different from the naive conception.

Is this a joke? So the 3D characters in the computer game are real people because they 'are what they do'?

I also explained very clearly and specifically why your form of idealism is nothing but special pleading and equivocation.

Oh dear... Pixy, all you have done is display your faith-based convictions. Clear your mind and try to see where true skepticism - devoid of any ideological motivations - leads you.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Dancing David]

I wonder why it is that those who wish to posit a non-conscious magic entity as responsible for neumenal reality being real, whatever and wherever such a thing is, or is imagined to be, need so very many words to do so? Just one piece of evidence would be all that is required to obviate such a need.

~
HypnoPsi

Considering materialists do not say what the nature of reality is, they explain the apparent behavior of reality, there is a huge difference. There is no axiomatic ontology to materialsim, it is redundant. I wonder why they need so many words to explain possible fusion in the sun?

Now granted there is a subset of materialist who insist that the precondition to the universe had to be material. But all we have is appearnces, all speculations are equally likely, Ockham's razor does not apply.

ETA: What does the ideal model predict or explain? Nonexistant psychic phenomena? Brains as TV sets?

 

[PixyMisa]

Because noumenal reality exists. Are you not even remotely curious about that?

Reality exists, yes. We investigate it through science.

What's this noumenal thingy you're jumping up and down about?

The light that hits our eyes that allows us to construct our 3D perspective of the world has been in contact with something real and independent of your conscious mind. (Simply leaving a clock in an empty room and forgetting about it for a while before you return to examine it demonstrates this.)

Yeah. We know that.

So what's this noumenal thingy?

Each one of us has our own unique piece of evidence that consciousness exists - and that consciousness can create, store and retrieve information. Indeed, we can create entire worlds in our minds.

Equivocation.

There may very well be some non-conscious self-perpetuating and self-generating magic power and/or power that is the cause of noumenal reality being and/or existing - but nobody knows for sure.

I really don't know why you keep bringing this nonsense up then.

The Universe actually exists, and we exist within it.

My question is why should anyone choose to put their faith and belief in this option (i.e. atheism)

Strawman.

when we already have something that we know can create a reality within itself (conscious minds)?

Equivocation.

Clearly the theory that the Universe is created inside another conscious mind

Equivocation.

(theism)

That ain't theism. It's one specific form of theism.

is the better theory.

And it ain't a theory.

I think the whole question about the true noumenal nature of reality is a very reasonable question and central to many issues today.

Central to what?

Currently we have groups and individuals actively promoting atheism as somehow better than theism in terms of such things as, understanding the nature of the Universe, social philosophy, morals, etc.,.

No. You have people promoting evidence as a superior test for truth than making stuff up.

Indeed, quite a few have jumped out of the closet kicking and screaming about how bad they believe religion and theism are.

And they provided that evidence stuff, too.

The funny thing is, upon examination, it turns out that atheism is just another belief system

Really?

So what exactly is it these atheists believe?

that won't and can't examine it's own foundation and requires the unwavering and unthinking faith

Faith in what?

of its adherents and handwaving en masse to sustain itself.

Adherents? En masse? HypnoPsi, have you ever met an atheist?

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah... you've finally reached that stage of your ahem... debating skills. First, you obfuscate and conflate with something akin to a religious fervour and then you announce that you actually have explained your answer "clearly and specifically". It took you longer to reach that stage this time than it usually does, Pixy.

Apart from the ad hominem, that was entirely free of content.

Do you have anything meaningful to say?

Is this a joke? So the 3D characters in the computer game are real people because they 'are what they do'?

No. They're not real people because they are what they do.

Oh dear... Pixy, all you have done is display your faith-based convictions.

And what might those be?

Clear your mind and try to see where true skepticism - devoid of any ideological motivations - leads you.

Done that, thanks. You should try it sometime.

 

[Dancing David]

There may very well be some non-conscious self-perpetuating and self-generating magic power and/or power that is the cause of noumenal reality being and/or existing - but nobody knows for sure.

~
HypnoPsi

So what, it doesn't matter. Sometimes you can take the flashlight of cognition and shine it in your face, so what?

No determination can be made either way, so it doesn't matter. It could be that Undetectable Pink Unicorns exist, cool. So what?

It could be that the Cosmic Coyote ate the Emergent Burrito and the Big Bang ensued, so what?

It doesn't matter, the results are the same, as stated earlier it doesn't matter if we are BIV, dead energy, godthought or butterfly dreams. They are alll the same.

It makes no difference, we could all be eddies in Russel's teapot as well, so what?

They are all equal.

 

[PixyMisa]

Considering materialists do not say what the nature of reality is, they explain the apparent behavior of reality, there is a huge difference. There is no axiomatic ontology to materialsim, it is redundant.

Yes, it's not clear what HypnoPsi thinks materialism is. I explained that in a modern context, it's simply the acceptance of methodological naturalism as the only robust source of knowledge of the world, and he went kind of insane.

 

[Belz...]

Noumena refers to what things are, explicitly separate from pheonmena, what things do.

I don't know who HypnoPsi thinks he is addressing, because most of the people in this thread don't even consider that a meaningful distinction, and have said so repeatedly.

Things are what they do, so the word "noumena" is useless.

 

[Belz...]

Equivocation.

Not only that, he isn't even right. Consciousness doesn't create or store data. It's merely aware of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Things are what they do, so the word "noumena" is useless.

Ding!

And again we are left to wonder who HypnoPsi is addressing.

 

[laca]

Ah... you've finally reached that stage of your ahem... debating skills. First, you obfuscate and conflate with something akin to a religious fervour and then you announce that you actually have explained your answer "clearly and specifically". It took you longer to reach that stage this time than it usually does, Pixy.




Is this a joke? So the 3D characters in the computer game are real people because they 'are what they do'?




Oh dear... Pixy, all you have done is display your faith-based convictions. Clear your mind and try to see where true skepticism - devoid of any ideological motivations - leads you.

~
HypnoPsi

Still projecting, I see... Suit yourself.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ah... you've finally reached that stage of your ahem... debating skills. First, you obfuscate and conflate with something akin to a religious fervour and then you announce that you actually have explained your answer "clearly and specifically". It took you longer to reach that stage this time than it usually does, Pixy.

Is this a joke? So the 3D characters in the computer game are real people because they 'are what they do'?

Oh dear... Pixy, all you have done is display your faith-based convictions. Clear your mind and try to see where true skepticism - devoid of any ideological motivations - leads you.
~
HypnoPsi

Your posts and your avatar seem to be in direct conflict.

 

[laca]

Your posts and your avatar seem to be in direct conflict.

Yup, that thought occurred to me too.

 

[gentlehorse]

The light that hits our eyes that allows us to construct our 3D perspective of the world has been in contact with something real and independent of your conscious mind.

Yes.

Each one of us has our own unique piece of evidence that consciousness exists - and that consciousness can create, store and retrieve information. Indeed, we can create entire worlds in our minds.

It's called imagination.

There may very well be some non-conscious self-perpetuating and self-generating magic power and/or power that is the cause of noumenal reality being and/or existing - but nobody knows for sure.

There is no compelling evidence for magic.

My question is why should anyone choose to put their faith and belief in this option (i.e. atheism) when we already have something that we know can create a reality within itself (conscious minds)?

If you define "atheism" as a position requiring faith in magic power or magic powder, then you will find very few here to whom you could accurately apply the label "atheist". If you put forth an argument against holding a position requiring faith in magic power or magic powder as if your opponent adheres to the position when he does not, then you are engaging in what's commonly referred to as "attacking a strawman".

Clearly the theory that the Universe is created inside another conscious mind (theism) is the better theory.

Again, a theory is a tentative explanation for observed phenomena that has predictive power. Assuming that the universe "is created inside another conscious mind" is not a theory. It is the unnecessary addition of an entity for which there is no evidence. It does not add to the body of knowledge. It is a matter of faith.

 

[The Norseman]

Not only that, he isn't even right. Consciousness doesn't create or store data. It's merely aware of it.

So thoughts and dreams aren't data? Though you, gentlehorse and Pixy are making awesome points in this thread, I have a slight quibble with this statement.

 

[HypnoPsi]

1) True or false. We know that the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness.

2) True or false. We do not know that the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness.

Number 1 is false because there is no evidence in support of the notion that the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness. Number 2 is true because there is no evidence in support of the notion that the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness. If you believe that "the fundamental nature of the universe is most likely to be a consciousness", then you believe something for which there is no evidence.

Wrong on several counts.

First, the qualification "most likely to be" is not the same as "we know" and it certainly allows for ultimately "we don't know".

Second, our conscious minds can create worlds inside our minds. (Fantasy authors are probably much better at this than the majority of us, for example.) So we do have evidence that consciousness can create, store and retreive information. What, honestly, is the point of denying this?

Third, this works the other way too:

1) True or false. We know that the fundamental nature of the universe is non-consciousness.

2) True or false. We do not know that the fundamental nature of the universe is non-consciousness.


Again, 1 is false and 2 is true and, if we take your third point literally then:

If you - or anyone - believe that "the fundamental nature of the universe is most likely to be non-conscious", then you believe something for which there is no evidence.

You have faith. I, on the other hand, am content to admit that the fundamental nature of the universe is a mystery.

I believe (and put my faith in the belief) that there is something conscious that gives the Universe and my own consciousness to existence and that in some way death will not be the ultimate end of me - but I will readily and happily admit I don't know that to be true.. As above, It is merely the case that this is what is "most likely to be" true.

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.

I wasn't aware that this was the topic of discussion.

Well, it certainly is for me.

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.

If there is no evidence of consciousness, what are we left with? The statement "There is no evidence of consciousness" is not a metaphysical claim. It's an observation.

Actually we're left with two things:

First, there is no direct evidence that the true noumenal nature of things is non-conscious either.

Second, there is indirect evidence for consciousness as the true noumenal nature of things.

Not only is consciousness more parsimonious because we each know it exists, we also know we can create things in our minds with it. Consequently, the theory that there is a conscious mind giving existence to the Universe is obviously a better thoery than an entirely speculative theory that it's a non-conscious substrate.

"Theistic theory" is misleading. Again, a theory is a tentative explanation of observed phenomena that has predictive powers.

Utterly wrong - again. Besides the fact that a hallmark of our consciousness is our creativity, a Universe given existence by consciousness both explains and predicts a lot more than the alternative. Consider the simple fact that we're conscious ourselves. We're all familiar with things being produced after their own kind (parents have children, plant cuttings can produce another plant, etc.,).

With metaphysical materialism you have to add other highly questionable and exotic layers of explanation to account for consciousness e.g. Dennett's thermostat that, he believes, thinks "too hot", "too cold" and "just right" equating consciousness with information processing.

But what's wrong with just information processing on it's own? You see, consciousness doesn't really have a genuine purpose in a metaphysically materialistic system - and it certainly wouldn't be predicted were you not already aware of its existence. For a system to get things done it just needs to be good at IP. It doesn't need to be aware that it's processing information or of the decisions it makes before it performs an action.

(Also worthy of note are the people who promote the 'fine tuned Universe' theory. In the theistic model that's easily accounted for. But again, the materialist needs to argue for random chance.)

It is not logical to assume that the universe has a "conscious entity behind it" when there is no evidence that this is the case.

It's perfectly logical to assume this given how clearly much more parsimonious the theory is - and it's better explanatory and predictive power (specifically in relation to our consciousnesses existing.)

The alternative model isn't logical at all - it involves constant patchworking to explain away things like consciousness and requires ever increasing leaps of faith to hold onto. Theism is very clearly a much simpler, much more logical and much more elegant explanation on all counts.

The existence of fleeting human consciousness is not an argument for a universe-making consciousness that permeates the fabric of reality.

Human consciousness is a perfectly reasonable argument for - the theory that there is - a universe-making consciousness that permeates the fabric of reality because human consciousness can create, store and retrieve information and human consciousness is known to each of us - unlike any non-conscious magic powder/power that is the stuff of pure speculation.

Again, I'm only pointing out it's the better theory. I'm not arguing that it's definitely the "truth" about reality. I accept fully that we have no way of knowing for sure.

You seemed to agree with this earlier when you said: "...reality is certainly mind-independent of our conscious minds."

This is hilarious. If I wasn't so used to all the mental gymnastics that non-theists regularly come up with to defend the indefensible I would probably find it hard to believe just how desparate you're getting!

Observing that "...reality is certainly mind-independent of our conscious minds." only means what it says. When I create something internally in my mind it's certainly not independent of me.

A powerful and creative enough mind could easily create within itself a universe like ours provided it was creative enough and had a mind vast enough to do so.

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.

Your belief is not a theory.

Not only is it a theory - it's a better theory than the alternative.

Besides, if it didn't qualify as a theory then neither would the alternative.

It has neither explanatory nor predictive power.

Nope. A theistic model partly explains and wholly predicts consciousness and, I imagine, a Universe fine tuned for we conscious beings to live in.

Metaphysical materialism can't explain consciousness at all - so instead its proponents try to explain consciousness away; for example, arguing that it's really just information processing - and the very idea that metaphysical materialism would predict IP becoming conscious if consciousness didn't already exist is laughable!

Moreover, it is based on your personal conviction rather than observed phenomena. It is simply an unsubstantiated belief.

Nope. And are you claiming psychic powers here? Unless you can look inside my head and see that I'm not basing my beliefs upon logic and observation why even make such a statement? After all, it too is immediately reversable whereby a theist could just as easily say that metaphysical materialism is just based on personal conviction rather than observed phenomena.

The bottom line is that you have very clearly lost the argument and that theists are definitely right to claim that theism is a much better model.

So, do keep it up. You have no idea just how heartwarming and encouraging it is to watch you all hopelessly and desparately try to actually debate this issue. That you do this so illogically, so unreasonably and so obtusely is just delightful.

It reminds me of the early days of atheists versus religious believers on usenet. Atheism just seemed to many to be obviously much more logical and reasonable than the ill thought out ideas of some oddball religious fundamentalist. Now the situation is well and truly reversed.

Atheists are so painfully transparent in their desparate clinging to such utterly impoverished illogic that they're making athesism look like the fool's belief system in ways that theists could never have hoped for!

~
HypnoPsi

 

[CurtC]

HypnoPsi, I'm trying to figure out what your thesis is. Your statement that "Indeed, we can create entire worlds in our minds" maybe gave me a clue.

Are you saying that this world that we think we see exists because it's in the imagination of a god? In the same way that we create worlds in our minds, the world that we perceive as external reality is just a thought in a god's mind?

 

[HypnoPsi]

I don't recall anyone is this thread positing the existence of magic powder/power.

Oh... but atheists do believe in a magic powder and/or power stuff. Really, truly, deeply. And this magic powder/power stuff is the stuff of pure idle speculation unviolated in any way by either logic or reason.

And it's because they believe in this magic powder/power "metaphysical materialism" stuff that they then reach all the wrong conclusions about reality and consciousness.

~
HypnoPsi