Question for materialists

_{Tom Peeler

October 22, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s been a while since I’ve been “out here” and I am wondering if materialism is still considered by some to be a rational position to hold. I understand “materialism” to be the idea that every existing thing is comprised of the periodic table of elements (rearranged in a vast number of ways described by the standard model and general relativity) and no more. Is this a fair definition? Thanks.

Comments

JVL: Sigh. Another roadside attraction. Skinny legs and all.
Still Life with Woodpecker. I am going to have to re-read all of them. The crowd here would become apoplectic over Another Roadside Attraction. Smuggling the body of Jesus Christ out of the Vatican crypts, threatening the collapse of Christianity.Sir Giles_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles: I’m beginning to look like Sissy Hankshaw in “Even Cowgirls Get The Blues.” Sigh. Another roadside attraction. Skinny legs and all.JVL_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

AF, I disagree with the phrase top down, read the chart and you will see two way interaction and a two port memory; supervisory yes but interactive. In fact I think quantum influence is a possibility. I put up the model as a start point for serious discussion. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

BA77@41, scroll, scroll, scroll. At least my thumb is getting a work out. I’m beginning to look like Sissy Hankshaw in “Even Cowgirls Get The Blues.”Sir Giles_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Q, since for some reason you feel like continuing to ask, I watched the Hossenfelder video. I doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion on this thread. She does have some interesting thoughts on QM, although she isn't in the majority on some issues (which doesn't mean she might not be right.) But I don't know why you think it important that I watched it. But now you can quit asking me.Viola Lee_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Followed your link. Very handily, Vincent Torley, who I regard as a friend these days though we disagree amicably on many issues, has commented on the OP in comments. He writes: The model you outline above is a very good way of describing how the unconscious mind of an insect might work, for instance. (“Unconscious mind” might sound like an oxymoron to some readers, but I used the term in my thesis to refer to the fact that an insect uses certain self-correcting representations as an internal map of the world, with which it can steer itself around. Effectively, these representations function as beliefs.) However, the conscious mind of a mammal or bird is a different kind of entity from the unconscious mind of an insect, and the self-reflexive mind of a human being is even further removed. In these kinds of minds, we can speak of “top-down” patterns of causation in the supervisory controller which are absent in the insect. And in the case of humans, it is quite certain that this top-down control is exercised via higher-level mental acts which are no longer bodily acts. The late philosopher, Mortimer Adler, had an interesting way of putting it. Referring to the human brain, he said: “You can’t think without it, but you don’t think with it.” I certainly disagree with Mortimer Adler. The mind is what the brain does and thinking is a physical process happening entirely within the brain.Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

AF, you forget this https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/reference-the-smith-model-an-architecture-for-cybernetics-and-mind-body-free-will-determinism-compatibilism-analysis/ (or even my always linked . . . ) and run true to form with your ill founded superciliousness. KF PS, did you notice my point that any thought that sees consciousness as dubious and delusional is self referentially incoherent? Where, of course there is a natural general location for the conscious self, our bodies, but also sometimes a bit beyond, on a lot of testimony and experience. In any case by law of identity it is not the brain or an emanation emerging from it, it interfaces with the body. See the Smith Model I have put up ever so many times as a start point for the serious discusion that too many are eager to avoid.kairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

"some fairly convincing experiments regarding the connection between brain and consciousness were conducted in the aftermath of the French Revolution."
The French Revolution (French: Révolution française [?ev?lysj?? f???s??z]) was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. - per wiki
Wait a second, so extremely crude experiments conducted over 220 years ago solved the hard problem of consciousness and we have been missing it all these years??? Stop the presses!
The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011 Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ - David Barash - Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845
As to altering consciousness with chemicals,
CAN LSD HELP US UNDERSTAND THE MIND–BRAIN RELATIONSHIP? Is the mind generated by the brain or does the brain merely focus the mind on the current scene? An experiment sheds some light MICHAEL EGNOR MAY 23, 2021 Excerpt: The Cornell researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of people on LSD or on placebo (= the control group). While using LSD, the brains of volunteers showed less high-level processing and more activity related to more rudimentary sensation. One of the investigators described the effect as flattening the landscape over which the brain can roam — the drug makes it easier for the mind to transcend mundane perceptual habits and see the world in greater detail. Thus they enabled people to break out of repetitive and ruminative thought. This work, whatever its other merits, lends credence to an understanding of the mind–brain relationship that goes back centuries. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Oxford philosopher Ferdinand Schiller in 1891 when he proposed that "… matter is not what produces consciousness but what limited and confines its intensity within certain limits… This explanation admits the connection of matter and consciousness, but contends that the course of interpretation must proceed in the contrary direction. Thus it will fit the facts with materialism rejected as supernatural and thereby attain an explanation which is ultimately tenable instead of one which is ultimately absurd. It is an explanation the possibility of which no evidence in favor materialism can possibly affect." QUOTED IN CHRIS CARTER, SCIENCE AND THE NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS SURVIVES DEATH (2010) CHAPTER 1. https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/can-lsd-help-us-understand-the-mind-brain-relationship/
Also see this refutation of the "DMT causes NDEs" claim of atheists
Near-Death Experiences and DMT - Steve Taylor Ph.D. - Oct 12, 2018 A neurological explanation of NDEs remains elusive. Excerpt: Another theory is that NDEs are related to psychedelic chemicals that are naturally produced by the brain. This theory was apparently boosted recently with the release of a paper called "DMT Models the Near-Death Experience" by a team of UK researchers associated with the Psychedelic Research Group at Imperial College London. (In case you don't know, DMT - short for dimethyltryptamine - is a hallucinogenic, similar to LSD and magic mushrooms.) Aiming to study the apparent similarities between the psychedelic substance and NDEs, the researchers gave both DMT and a placebo to 13 participants, then asked them to complete a scale of the characteristics of NDEs. The results were reported as showing significant overlap between the two types of experience. As the researchers concluded, "Results revealed significant increases in phenomenological features associated with the NDE, following DMT administration compared to placebo." This appears to be true, but on closer inspection, the findings of the paper still fall far short of establishing any strong connection between DMT and NDEs. Of the 16 items in the NDE scale used in the study, nine items showed a high degree of crossover. These included an ‘unearthly environment,’ a sense of peace, heightened senses, harmony/unity, altered time perception, feelings of joy, bright light, and so on. However, all nine of these characteristics are generally associated with spiritual or mystical experiences, rather than just NDEs. It is well known that NDEs have a strong spiritual or mystical element to them, which is partly why they have such a powerful life-changing effect. But NDEs are not just spiritual experiences. And significantly, the seven items in this study with the least crossover between NDEs and DMT were those which differentiate NDEs from standard spiritual experiences. For example, three of the most salient characteristics of NDEs are a feeling of reaching a ‘border/point of no return,’ ‘encountering deceased/religious spirits,’ and a life review. In this study, these were amongst the least reported in DMT experiences. In other words, what this study seems to indicate is a relationship between DMT experiences and spiritual or mystical experiences. Since we already know that NDEs contain some of the same elements of spiritual experiences, it is not surprising that there is some relationship between NDEs and DMT experiences. In view of this, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that NDEs are associated with DMT. Other researchers—such as Rick Strassman—have suggested that NDEs may be caused by the release of DMT when a person is close to death or in the process of dying. However, there is no evidence that large amounts of DMT are released close to death. It is not even certain that DMT is produced in the human body (although it has been found in the pineal gland of rats). The After-Effects of NDEs But perhaps one of the strongest arguments against any connection between NDEs and DMT is their after-effects. As I describe in my new book, Spiritual Science, in the great majority of cases, NDEs are powerfully transformative experiences. After them, a person's values and attitude toward life are completely transformed. People often become less materialistic and more altruistic, less self-oriented and more compassionate. They often feel a new sense of purpose, and their relationships become more authentic and intimate. They report becoming more sensitive to beauty and more appreciative of everyday things. They also typically report a loss of the fear of death. It’s remarkable that one single experience can have such a profound, long-lasting, transformational effect. This is illustrated by research showing that people who have near-death experiences following suicide attempts very rarely attempt suicide again. This is in stark contrast to the normal pattern—in fact, a previous suicide attempt is usually the strongest predictor of actual suicide. This is one of the strongest arguments against the idea that NDEs are a brain-generated hallucination. Dreams and hallucinations do not generally have transformational after-effects. They are usually quickly forgotten, with a clear sense that they were delusional experiences, less authentic and reliable than ordinary consciousness. (In contrast, with NDEs there is a clear sense that the experience is more real and authentic than normal consciousness.) And this applies to DMT experiences, too. There is no doubt that psychedelic experiences such as DMT can sometimes be transformative to some degree. For some, they provide a glimpse of a more expansive and intense reality which makes them realize that their normal view of the world is limited. They may lead to a new interest in spirituality. However, DMT experiences are certainly not transformational to anything like the same degree as NDEs. In a 2012 paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, Dr. Michael Potts examined the similarities between NDEs and DMT and also concluded that salient features of NDEs are absent (such as traveling through a tunnel into a transcendent realm or the subsequent reporting of events witnessed during the experience). But most notably, in Potts’ view, DMT lacked the powerful transformative after-effects of NDEs. He concluded that in NDEs permanent change is the rule rather than the exception, whereas it is the exception rather than the rule with DMT. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201810/near-death-experiences-and-dmt Steve Taylor, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK.
bornagain77_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

We can alter consciousness with chemicals that act on the brain.
Indeed. And, though I certainly don't suggest they be repeated, some fairly convincing experiments regarding the connection between brain and consciousness were conducted in the aftermath of the French Revolution.Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

We can alter consciousness with chemicals that act on the brain.Sir Giles_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Actually, I'm quite interested in the idea of what people think the word "consciousness" actually means. I get the impression some religious folks equate it with the idea of a soul. My current position is there is no need nor justification to postulate that consciousness has a separate existence from the process of thinking, a physical process which occurs in the brain. Anyone want to argue the point?Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

So, KF, you run true to form. Ask a question that you have no answer to.Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

AF, to object you used your own consciousness and appealed to mine. That is enough. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

AF, the dismissal of consciousness is at once self referential and self defeating. Of course, the trouble is, this is the part that sticks out beyond the Procrustean bed. KF
Doesn't stick out of my bed, Procrustean or not. What do you think consciousness is, and where is it located?Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

AF, the dismissal of consciousness is at once self referential and self defeating. Of course, the trouble is, this is the part that sticks out beyond the Procrustean bed. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

VL, appreciated. Materialism is indeed beyond C19 now, as our concepts of the physical world have changed, but it still retains the central rejection Monod stated and thus it becomes an ideological imposition and runs into self referentiality trouble. . KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

re 14, to KF: My apologies: you were on topic. The modern meaning of materialism would include the idea that there is no plan or intention in the outflowing of causal histories via physical mechanisms, including all the forces and quantum phenomena that have been mentioned above.Viola Lee_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

"let’s say for the sake of argument that consciousness is a property of a living, thinking human brain." Let's not! "I" am not my brain! (see post 20)bornagain77_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

...our consciousness is delusional if it is without residue the manifestation of a computational substrate and if it is sufficiently free to be rational it is a sign that reality is more than the material...
If, maybe. That's a big if. Whilst I question the concept of consciousness altogether, let's say for the sake of argument that consciousness is a property of a living, thinking human brain. By that definition, consciousness is a process inherent in brain activity. There's no need to look for a non-physical explanation.
...as Haldane pointed out long since.
He's dead. But a few quotations (and apocryphal) remarks remain popular. Wikipedia *He is famous for the (possibly apocryphal) response that he gave when some theologians asked him what could be inferred about the mind of the Creator from the works of His Creation: "An inordinate fondness for beetles."[121][122] or sometimes, "....stars and beetles."[123] *"My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."[124] *"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."[124]:?209? *"Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."[125][126] *"I had gastritis for about fifteen years until I read Lenin and other writers, who showed me what was wrong with our society and how to cure it. Since then I have needed no magnesia."[127] *"I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages: (i) This is worthless nonsense; (ii) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; (iii) This is true, but quite unimportant; (iv) I always said so."[128] *"Three hundred and ten species in all of India, representing two hundred and thirty-eight genera, sixty-two families, nineteen different orders. All of them on the Ark. And this is only India, and only the birds."[129] *"The stupidity of the mynah shows that in birds, as in men, linguistic and practical abilities are not very highly correlated. A student who can repeat a page of a text book may get first class honours, but may be incapable of doing research."[130] *When asked whether he would lay down his life for his brother, Haldane, presaging Hamilton's rule, supposedly replied "two brothers or eight cousins".Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Hmmm, AF: "Anything that impinges on our reality,,, All are physical" And exactly what is this 'our reality' that all that physical stuff is impinging on?
"We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” - John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955
As hinted at in post 20, Materialism/Physicalism/Naturalism simply is at a complete loss to explain the "our reality' that all that physical stuff is impinging on. i.e. the 'hard problem' of consciousness. I find George Ellis's 'pragmatic' definition of existence to be far more useful in defining what exists. "If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter)",,, "The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities."
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y.?Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, ,,,However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of causation. The flourishing subject of social neuroscience makes clear how social influences act down on individual brain structure[2]; studies in physiology demonstrate that downward causation is necessary in understanding the heart, where this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes[3]; epigenetic studies demonstrate that biological development is crucially shaped by the environment[4] What about physics? In this essay I will make the case that top-down causation is also prevalent in physics, even though this is not often recognised as such. This does not occur by violating physical laws; on the contrary, it occurs through the laws of physics, by setting constraints on lower level interactions. Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.,,, Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
Likewise, using Ellis's 'pragmatic' definition of existence, God's Mind can also be discerned. As Dr. Egnor asks, "What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden?"
The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor -Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect. Is the information that God provides in these ways sufficient to convince a reasonable person of His existence? Consider the ten ways that simple everyday experience provides inexhaustible evidence for His existence: Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence. Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/
Verse:
Romans 1:19 - 20 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

AF, our consciousness is delusional if it is without residue the manifestation of a computational substrate and if it is sufficiently free to be rational it is a sign that reality is more than the material, as Haldane pointed out long since. And your pushing strawmannish talking points about gaps is a naked, prejudice driven fallacy. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

KF, it's simple. Anything that impinges on our reality (our ontology, if you like), however indirectly (as examples but not restricted to) such as an image from a scanning electron microscope, an X-ray diffraction pattern from a crystal, infra-red signals from the Webb telescope is part of this physical universe. Some things are only known from their effects, such as gravity and black holes. All are physical. There are indeed limits to our knowledge; what is beyond the visible universe, for instance. There are also limits to our ability to understand ourselves and the reality we inhabit. Humans have a propensity for vivid imagination and, seemingly, an emotional need for stories that fill gaps in our knowledge.Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

AF, actually, there is a need to clarify the term materialism. Some have taken time to make substantial contributions. Your input is? ________ KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Sev, that we are embodied is not the issue, that we are self aware, conscience guarded, have rational responsible freedom is. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

You see, as Alan succinctly highlighted in his question “Who are you arguing with?”
And the answer is?Alan Fox_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

JVL LOL……chuckdarwin_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin: Like Madonna sings: Papa, don't preach. Sorry, couldn't resist.JVL_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Like Madonna sings:
You know that we are living in a material world And I am a material girl…..
chuckdarwin_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Whistler: "Materialism is a ridiculous concept." Alan Fox "Who are you arguing with?"
Thanks for succinctly highlighting the primary fatal flaw within materialism/physicalism/naturalism Alan.,,,, Under materialism/physicalism/naturalism there simply is no "Who" for anyone to be arguing with! Only "Neuronal Illusions', 'Meat Robots', and/or ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind',
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 “Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.” Anil Seth, “The Real Problem” at Aeon – (Nov. 2, 2016) – per evolution news – Oct. 2022 “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University – per academia Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, – Alex Rosenberg – Professor of Philosophy Duke University – The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 “The first thing to understand, I believe, is that there is no thing like “the self.” Nobody ever had or was a self. Selves are not part of reality. Selves are not something that endures over time. The first person pronoun “I” doesn’t refer to an object like a football or a bicycle, it just points to the speaker of the current sentence. There is no thing in the brain or outside in the world, which is us. We are processes… the self is not a thing but a process.” – Thomas Metzinger is a German philosopher. As of 2011 he holds the position of director of the theoretical philosophy group at the department of philosophy at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. - per evolution news Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
You see, as Alan succinctly highlighted in his question "Who are you arguing with?", (and in a shining example of poetic justice), in the atheist’s denial that God exists as a real person, the atheist ends up having to deny that he himself exists as a real person. Without God being a real person, there simply is nothing for the atheistic materialist to ground the entire concept of ‘personhood’ on!
Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
Moreover, it is not just our ‘sense of self’, i.e. our very ‘personhood’, that Darwinists end up denying the reality of, (as devastating as that is for materialists), Darwinists end up, because of their reductive materialistic framework, being forced to deny the reality of many things that everyone, including the vast majority of Darwinists themselves, accept as being undeniably real.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 – Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus, although a materialist, Darwinian Atheist, and/or Methodological Naturalist, may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
And to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves, (whatever the 'particles' may actually be, and which Darwinian materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation, and/or ultimate definition, for all of reality), are themselves found to not be ‘real’.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.” - Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.) "Materialism (or physicalism or naturalism) is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them. The resources available to the materialist for providing an explanation of how the universe works are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes. Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world." - Bruce Gordon PhD. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/why-quantum-theory-does-not-support-materialism/ "If you go back and look at the premises which underlie materialism, They are all presumptions that were made back in the 17th and 18th century. Those (presumptions) are: reality, locality, causality, continuity, and determinism. All of those concepts were assumed to be self evident. And all of them have been disproved by quantum theory. The last one to fall was locality. (John Bell's theory of non-locality disproved locality, which has now been proven I think 11 times in 11 different experiments throughout the world.),,, Anyone who says, "Well, I want to believe materialism and I don't want to believe quantum physics." Okay then, get rid of your cell phone, along with anything you have with a transistor in it. Get rid of your MRIs, get rid of all those things. Because quantum electro-dynamics is the theory which allows those things. It is the most proven theory in all of science." - Dr. Alan Hugenot - 2015 Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
bornagain77_{October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply