My argument against materialism

[HypnoPsi]

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.

This is great. Please keep it up. Everyone else on the planet understands exactly what is meant when someone points out that it's really their brains that is producing their 3D world due to the light that hits their eyes and that there is a real noumenal world out there.

Please keep insisting it's not a meaningful distinction. I wish you every success in persauding other atheists into adopting this position. I really do. Theists could never make atheism look as bad as you do!

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Nope. All specualations are not at all equally likely and Ockham's razor applies.

Metaphysical materialism can neither explain nor predict consciousness. Instead, it tries to explain away consciousness as just information processing (as in Dennett's thermostat that thinks "too hot", "too cold" or "just right"). But, of course, that's just ignoring the problem.

Metaphysical materialism simply can't account for why any information processing system requires any type of conscious awareness that it is processing information in the first place! And, if conscousness didn't already exist it wouldn't be able to predict it!

Alternatively, theism has like after it's own kind. Just as parent's make little humans, God makes little consciousnesses (a.k.a. souls).

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

Nope. Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results. Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

So what's this noumenal thingy?

Take a seat, Pixy.... Let Uncle HypnoPsi teach you about the facts of life.

The noumenal thingy, Pixy, is a very important thingy.

You see the world you're looking at around you? Well, there is definitely a real world out there but what you're actually seeing is being produced by your brainy-waney.

You see, light from the objects around you is entering into your eyes but the objects around you themselves aren't enterning into your eyes, are they? No. That would be silly. They're too big!

So, since you only translate light signals into your 3D world (along with information from your other senses) we call what you're seeing the phenomenal perceptual world. (Now, there are a few big words in that sentence so read it several times.)

As for the world itself that is reflecting the light that your eyes are picking up, we call that noumenal reality. (Again, read that sentence a few times if you have difficulty with it.)

Now, think long and hard about this Pixy, because everyone else your age understands it perfectly well and you don't want to look silly, do you?

Do you?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[tsig]

Of course we do. What you're seeing is not a recording. It's a chain of interactions leading from your computer screen to your eyes to your brain.



Yeah, and the hammer doesn't REALLY break the rock, because it never actually touches it. It's electromagnetic forces at work. Your point ?



What in the blue hell is the "neumenal" (wasn't it noumenal, before ?) ? And what is the "essence of reality" ?

It's what's left after you boil all the woo out of it.

 

[tsig]

Because noumenal reality exists[/U]. 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.)




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

I don't see the difference between this 'noumenal reality' and reality adding an adjective doesn't change the meaning of the noun it modifies.

So you think that there's a mind thinking all this up? Wouldn't that make god the Ultimate Solipsist and everything that happens just shadow play in the mind of god?

 

[SumDood]

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!

Sorry if this has been covered, but why exactly does consciousness need a special explanation as opposed to trees or a mud puddle?

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.

Can I say it? Non-sequitur. Thank you very much. "We can imagine things in our head, therefor it it likely that existence was imagined in some super-being's head." That is what you are honestly saying?

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

Evidence? Source? Anything to support this assertion?

 

[CurtC]

Everyone else on the planet understands exactly what is meant when someone points out that it's really their brains that is producing their 3D world due to the light that hits their eyes and that there is a real noumenal world out there.

I don't think so - I am a pretty well-informed guy. It would be an understatement that I'm more aware of philosophy and physics than 90% of the population. I realize that's not saying much, but still the 90th percentile is way above average. And I had never heard of the word "noumenal" before this thread.

Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

I once wrote a program and ran it on my computer. When I typed in the question "Do you have conscious awareness?" the computer responded "Yes, of course I do!"

 

[tsig]

Nope. All specualations are not at all equally likely and Ockham's razor applies.

Metaphysical materialism can neither explain nor predict consciousness. Instead, it tries to explain away consciousness as just information processing (as in Dennett's thermostat that thinks "too hot", "too cold" or "just right"). But, of course, that's just ignoring the problem.

Metaphysical materialism simply can't account for why any information processing system requires any type of conscious awareness that it is processing information in the first place! And, if conscousness didn't already exist it wouldn't be able to predict it!

Alternatively, theism has like after it's own kind. Just as parent's make little humans, God makes little consciousnesses (a.k.a. souls).





Nope. Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results. Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?



~
HypnoPsi

And big gods make little gods and so on ad infinitum.

 

[tsig]

Take a seat, Pixy.... Let Uncle HypnoPsi teach you about the facts of life.

The noumenal thingy, Pixy, is a very important thingy.

You see the world you're looking at around you? Well, there is definitely a real world out there but what you're actually seeing is being produced by your brainy-waney.

You see, light from the objects around you is entering into your eyes but the objects around you themselves aren't enterning into your eyes, are they? No. That would be silly. They're too big!

So, since you only translate light signals into your 3D world (along with information from your other senses) we call what you're seeing the phenomenal perceptual world. (Now, there are a few big words in that sentence so read it several times.)

As for the world itself that is reflecting the light that your eyes are picking up, we call that noumenal reality. (Again, read that sentence a few times if you have difficulty with it.)

Now, think long and hard about this Pixy, because everyone else your age understands it perfectly well and you don't want to look silly, do you?

Do you?

~
HypnoPsi

I call it reality. Are you claiming that the world is somehow different than what we perceive in the brain?

 

[tsig]

Sorry if this has been covered, but why exactly does consciousness need a special explanation as opposed to trees or a mud puddle?



Can I say it? Non-sequitur. Thank you very much. "We can imagine things in our head, therefor it it likely that existence was imagined in some super-being's head." That is what you are honestly saying?


Evidence? Source? Anything to support this assertion?

Well you wouldn't want to be just a blob of matter now would you? Next you'll be suggesting that we're animals and we know were that leads.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

How do we detect/measure conscious awareness?
Can you name even one experiment that shows any specific entity has conscious awareness?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Take a seat, Pixy.... Let Uncle HypnoPsi teach you about the facts of life.

The noumenal thingy, Pixy, is a very important thingy.

You see the world you're looking at around you? Well, there is definitely a real world out there but what you're actually seeing is being produced by your brainy-waney.

You see, light from the objects around you is entering into your eyes but the objects around you themselves aren't enterning into your eyes, are they? No. That would be silly. They're too big!

So, since you only translate light signals into your 3D world (along with information from your other senses) we call what you're seeing the phenomenal perceptual world. (Now, there are a few big words in that sentence so read it several times.)

As for the world itself that is reflecting the light that your eyes are picking up, we call that noumenal reality. (Again, read that sentence a few times if you have difficulty with it.)

Now, think long and hard about this Pixy, because everyone else your age understands it perfectly well and you don't want to look silly, do you?

Do you?

~
HypnoPsi

It's sad to see such a wonderful thing as sarcasm abused so badly.

 

[Robin]

As for the world itself that is reflecting the light that your eyes are picking up, we call that noumenal reality. (Again, read that sentence a few times if you have difficulty with it.)

"Noumenon" as Kant used it meant something "cogitated by the understanding alone", as opposed to something cogitated via perception. He also called the noumenon the "thing in itself".

Kant himself pointed out the confusedness of the distinction, indeed the whole point in his discussion was to point out a confusedness the current in metaphysical thinking of his time.

Mach pointed out that we can simply dispense with the term altogether and have lost nothing. I don't think the term has appeared in philosophy since.

So, no, the noumena thingy is quite unimportant - it is just a confused mode of thinking.

I have a mental representation of - say - a chair. I assume that there is something that this mental representation is of, since I can refer to it and someone else can identify it.

That is to say that there is a common information source for our separate mental representations.

But that information source cannot be in a different world, realm or different sort of reality since there is obviously an information transfer happening between them.

You can arbitrarily label the information source "matter" or "material reality" or "idea in the mind of God".

But your labelling convention would not change the sense of what it being said.

 

[Dancing David]

Nope. All specualations are not at all equally likely and Ockham's razor applies.

You can not apply Ockham's razor to zero values, speculation is a zero value.

Metaphysical materialism can neither explain nor predict consciousness. Instead, it tries to explain away consciousness as just information processing (as in Dennett's thermostat that thinks "too hot", "too cold" or "just right"). But, of course, that's just ignoring the problem.

You mean the Vague Problem of Lacking a Coherent Defintion?

Some people use information processing, I use associative learning.

Metaphysical materialism simply can't account for why any information processing system requires any type of conscious awareness that it is processing information in the first place! And, if conscousness didn't already exist it wouldn't be able to predict it!

Alternatively, theism has like after it's own kind. Just as parent's make little humans, God makes little consciousnesses (a.k.a. souls).

And Russel's teapot make Russel's teacups.

Nope. Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results. Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

~
HypnoPsi

Uh huh, sure and when the data is examined, hey where is that imaginary data HypnoPsi, you know the ones that rise above noise? The studies you haven't presented yet?

 

[HypnoPsi]

So you think that there's a mind thinking all this up?

A mind created Universe is certainly more parsimonious than metaphysical materialsim - but parsimony does not guarantee accuracy of a theory only elegance.

However, since the theistic model also has better explanatory and predictive power than than the alternative atheistic model (which has no explanatory or predictive power at all with regards to consciousness) we can certainly be very confident in it's veracity.

I wish we could be certain, but we can't. There is still a chance - though it is fleetingly slim - that the less well reasoned atheistic model is the correct one.

Wouldn't that make god the Ultimate Solipsist and everything that happens just shadow play in the mind of god?

Nope - for the blindingly obvious reason that the Universe is populated by distinct self-aware entities....

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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!

Sorry if this has been covered, but why exactly does consciousness need a special explanation as opposed to trees or a mud puddle?

Who says it needs a special explanation? It's just the nature of human inquiry to take a shot at explaining things. (But, of course, explaining it away as someone like Dennett tries to do, coming from an atheistic perspective, isn't an explanation at all.)

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.

Can I say it? Non-sequitur. Thank you very much. "We can imagine things in our head, therefor it it likely that existence was imagined in some super-being's head." That is what you are honestly saying?

Nope. What I am saying is because we can create things "in our head" with our conscious minds, it is more likely that existence itself is the product of a conscious mind rather than the product of some purely speculative non-conscious substrate as in metaphysical materialism.

We don't know for sure which theory is right but the former theory is certainly more parsimonious.

Psychic phenomena definitely exist. Loads of experiments show positive results. Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

Evidence? Source? Anything to support this assertion?

Absoloutely tons. Look it up. Most prominent parapsychogists websites and blogs will have references (Radin, Sheldrake, etc,.).

Can you think of even one experiment that shows something like a computer being conscious? And what about Dennett's idea about thermostat's thinking?

I'll happily compare the evidence for psi against the evidence for machine conscousness if, that is..... you actually have something to compare it to?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[laca]

Nope. All specualations are not at all equally likely and Ockham's razor applies.

Metaphysical materialism can neither explain nor predict consciousness. Instead, it tries to explain away consciousness as just information processing (as in Dennett's thermostat that thinks "too hot", "too cold" or "just right"). But, of course, that's just ignoring the problem.

Metaphysical materialism simply can't account for why any information processing system requires any type of conscious awareness that it is processing information in the first place! And, if conscousness didn't already exist it wouldn't be able to predict it!

Wrong. It's pretty easy to see that consciousness provides serious evolutionary advantages. I think Pixy pointed this out in the other thread.

Alternatively, theism has like after it's own kind. Just as parent's make little humans, God makes little consciousnesses (a.k.a. souls).

Alternatively, theism has a lot of unsubstantiated BS, yes. That's why I am an atheist.

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

Any one of those independently verified, replicated or published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Didn't think so.

 

[HypnoPsi]

And big gods make little gods and so on ad infinitum.

Ah... nope. At least, I've certainly not became a god or created any little gods in my mind that have a distinct existence.

Have you?

Seems to me - so far - that it's just God and we conscious beings that inhabit his creation.

(Let me know if you actually do find more.)

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

I had never heard of the word "noumenal" before this thread.

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?

Can you even name one experiment that shows a computer has conscious awareness?

I once wrote a program and ran it on my computer. When I typed in the question "Do you have conscious awareness?" the computer responded "Yes, of course I do!"

Heck... A long time ago... in a thread far, far, away... I once posed the question to the believers in Dennett's thinking thermostat model (whereby the thermostat is said to think "too hot", "too cold" and "just right") if they believed that a cock and ball toilet cistern also thinks "too much water", "too little water" and "just the right amount of water"....

And you know what?

Several said yes!!!

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.

(Theists, being a bit more sensible, if not downright skeptical, require a bit more evidence.)

~
HypnoPsi

 

[SumDood]

Who says it needs a special explanation? It's just the nature of human inquiry to take a shot at explaining things. (But, of course, explaining it away as someone like Dennett tries to do, coming from an atheistic perspective, isn't an explanation at all.)

You say "Metaphysical materialism can't explain consciousness at all" to which I say "Why is that a problem?" Why does the lack of an explanation of consciousness invalidate materialism?

Nope. What I am saying is because we can create things "in our head" with our conscious minds, it is more likely that existence itself is the product of a conscious mind rather than the product of some purely speculative non-conscious substrate as in metaphysical materialism.

Once again, non-sequitur, you conclusion does not follow your premise.

Absoloutely tons. Look it up. Most prominent parapsychogists websites and blogs will have references (Radin, Sheldrake, etc,.)i

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.