Materialism

[Solitaire]

I have no direct experience of anyone else's consciousness, but I know of no
way to gather convincing indirect evidence. There is no physical observation
or measurement that I know of whose results would constitute evidence for
or against the hypothesis that anyone besides me has (or does not have)
consciousness. (This is because, due to the fact that I have only a single
data point to infer from, I have no reliable knowledge about the correlation
between physical facts and subjective consciousness.)
[HR SIZE = 50%]
It does not seem true to me. If I know of a drug that alter consciousness,
and give it to other person, then I will able to hear a description of it's effects
and test it in myself. If the effects in my consciousness are similar this is a
pretty good indirect evidence of consciousness in the other side!

I does not do so because I can derive another solution. If the physical
brain through evolution evolves similar brain processes across individual's
then taking a drug alters both brains in similar ways. Thus, the evidence
proves materialism.

A way to solve this little dilemma involves the transfer of information.
Person A meets person B on the street and they exchange information.
If I give a coded message to person A and person B returns from his trip
giving me the same coded message then I conclude, with a certain degree
of certainty, they met and exchange the message.

If person B while physically separated from person A returns the coded
message I gave person A whilst both on the mind altering drug, then I
would say, “Let’s try that again.” If not then we go with the default case.

 

[Guest]

Jethro :

To be honest, I've been around this loop too many times before....the more obvious it becomes that materialism can be shown to be false the higher goes the level of emotional outbursts, ad hominems and general chaos. I think the problem has been clearly enough specified already in this thread, and if you don't then we will have to agree to disagree.

But I'll reply to the rest of your post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That depends upon your conception of time. From the piint of view of consciousness it is always "now", always has been and always will be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, but surely you would agree that there is evidence, even just in the form of one's own memories, that something other than now exists. We call this something "the past," and there is a great deal of evidence that at some point in the past, the universe existed and human conciousness as we know it did not. Not to mention the fact that, in the macroscopic world anyway, things appear to exist independent of their being observed.

As I said, nothing is as it appears. What is the difference between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world? Why do we think about them as if there is some critical point where what we know about quantum physics stops being the way this objective reality works? I am with Schroedinger, who was also an idealist. The cat is both dead and alive till observed. The Universe may 'exist' unobserved, but it exists in a quantum superposition where the unobserved past is as indeterminate as the future. I believe the whole of reality works like this. From the point of view of materialism and linear time then one has to conclude that somehow there was a 'beginning of time' in an inexplicable 'big bang'. I see that as simply the Universe 'inventing' a past that is logically consistent with the present. If you believe that materialism is wrong then your concept of the Universe must come from the POV of consciousness, not matter. If you want more detail about what I am describing then PM me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people argue that there is, and it has been ignored. e.g. the "hundredth monkey effect",
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are aware that the hundredth monkey effect is a myth? e:f,b. But anyway, as you said, let's keep this on topic. Perhaps then a new thread or links to old ones that contain such evidence?

I would disagree that this effect is a myth. I think this is typical of the problems created by materialistic science. To the materialist mainstream this phenomena must be false. So all evidence is dismissed - 'the damned data of science' as Charles Fort put it. Until you let go of materialism, you dismiss it - and enough people dismissing it allows people like yourself to claim it is a myth. I don't think the 'evidence' is the problem. I think it is the believability under materialism which is the problem. Therefore more links won't help. You will find no shortage of people willing to passionately 'debunk' it, just as with the PEAR results. Those people have an agenda, and at the top of the agenda is that anything which makes no sense under materialism must be DEBUNKED.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things aren't always the way they seem. Understanding the relationships between time, matter, consciousness, past, future and present can reveal more than one way of looking at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, one way I would describe materialism is the assumption that things are as they seem, more or less.

Which explains a great deal. Materialism is institutinalised confusion regarding the difference between "The world as it really is" and "The world as we perceive it". The materialist believes the world actually IS as he percieves it. Kant must be turning in his grave.

Note to all :

I am thinking of retiring from this thread, and taking a long, maybe permanent break from this board. I'm not sure what remains to be said. It's spring, and I think I wish to return to the real world.

 

[davidsmith73]

Well, call me a silly materialist, but I still fail to see why conciousness and awareness cannot be emergent properties of physical systems.

The physical state of the brain most certainly affects one's mental state. Anyone who has ever sustained a brain injury, hallucinated while suffering from a fever, taken a psychotropic drug, experienced TMS, or even dated a woman for more than a month can verify that. Well, if the "mind" is so influenced by the purely physical, why cannot it be purely physical?

Remember that the important issue is whether the "primary stuff" of reality is our description of matter or our experience of qualia. When you say that the "mind" (I presume that you mean qualia) is purely physical you are in fact reducing the two concepts to equivalence. So we start with a dualistic interpretation of "matter" and "mind" and reduce them to a single realm. After all, physical is just a label applied to both descriptions. However, its interesting that you have chosen to retain the word "physical" as a label because this implies that you have retained the original dualistic meaning of physcical and somehow stuck on the "mind" with celotape. Sorry, I'm being facetious just to make a point.

If we are really talking about a single realm then it seems much more natural to use our experience of qualia as the starting point. From our experience of qualia we derive our descriptions of matter and create a conceptual outside world. And this is actually quite apparent if one takes the time to break out of a dualistic world view, which I think many of us hold without even realising it. This way, everything we describe from science still holds true because it is still "matter" but "matter" now has a different origin. There is no "out there" or "in your mind" because these phrases carry connotations of a dualistic conception of reality which we have just rejected.

So with regards to the "mind" being affected by "matter", I find this a little harder to reconcile with what I've just said. I'm still working on this but...
Under the one-realm conception I've just mentioned, qualia becomes the "stuff" of reality. In the same sense that a conception of a physcal reality might not merely be a specific arrangement of matter at any one time but be described as infinite, perhaps dimensionless is the right word, then we can use the same meaning to describe our qualia reality. In other words, our individual experience at any one time is not a reflection of reality, because we experience things as separate qualia (i.e. red and yellow) when the true reality (qualia per se) is infinite. So when we take LSD all we can do is to describe the "physical" changes that take place in our brain and as I have said, the "physical" no longer exists as separate from the "mental". Quantitative observations are still qualia (they're just dressed smartly ). So qualia has interacted with qualia which is the same as saying physical interacts with physical except that the meaning of the words has changed dramatically and I am starting to think this difference in meaning can only be realised through introspection not through science.

 

[Loki]

UCE,

I am thinking of retiring from this thread, and taking a long, maybe permanent break from this board.

Try some music again, Geoff - ultimately, it's probably more rewarding than debating philosphy on the internet!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Davidsmith73,

So my first question to Stimpy would be - do you think that secondary qualities like wetness and redness are real in the same sense as mathematical descriptions like position and momentum are real ? or do you think there is a difference between them and if so what is the difference ?

Absolutely they are real in the same sense as position and momentum, and other mathematically quantifiable things. Materialism does not hold that these things are not real, or that they do not exist, but rather that they are reducible to such mathematical descriptions.

We are used to describing things in terms of other things we already understand. Science is no different in this regard. Ultimately, the foundation upon which everything else is described, is a mathematical one. Right now it is QM. QM is a purely mathematical description of observed phenomena. This is very unsatisfying for many people, because they are used to having mechanistic explanations, in terms of other things they already understand. But at the most fundamental level, the explanations must all boil down to a purely mathematical description. Maybe someday we will find something more fundamental than QM, which we can mechanistically describe QM in terms of, but then whatever that is will just be a mathematical description.

Ultimately, the only tool we have for understanding concepts is logic, and mathematics is a language for expressing logic. So when you get down to the fundamentals, any explanation amounts to a mathematical description. Ultimately, that is all we can ever reasonably expect to have.

I'm begining to see the problem (perhaps )
The materialist view is advocating one realm. It says that the dualistic categories of qualia vs physical belong to one realm but instead of creating a philosophy that encompases both categories, it choses to retain the dualistic interpretation of physical reality and discards the qualia which leaves us with the hard problem.

One thing that has become very clear to me in debating with dualists, is that what dualists and materialists mean by "physical reality" are subtly, but significantly different things. I would not say that it is accurate to claim that materialists retain the dualistic interpretation of physical reality. On the contrary, I think that many of the things which dualists define to be non-physical are clearly physical under the materialistic definition of the term.


UCE,

That's exactly how I define "Universe". Now, is that it? Does it have any other characteristics, or is it just synonymous with Universe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not synonymous with Universe, since 'Universe' is already a label for the perceived physical Universe. 'Mind' is a container for that physical Universe. Refering to the mental level of existence as 'Universe' may have its uses, but it is likely to complicate this debate.

That may be how you define "Universe", but it is not how I define it. In any event, my question still stands: What characteristics, besides being the "container for everything that exists", does this "Mind" which you posit have?

Your mind is a sub-division of the metamind. Your mind is part of the metamind. The seperation is an illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could as easily say that your mind is a part of the Universe, and that the separation that dualists are always talking about is an illusion. What's the difference, other than the fact that under my framework, the scientific method can be used to try to understand how the mind works, and under yours, it (for some as yet unexplained reason) cannot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason, Stimp, is that you claim mind is part of the physical Universe on the grounds that this enables science to investigate it with no regard for the fact that science itself eliminates mind from its method!!!!

No, I claim that human minds are a part of the physical Universe on the grounds that the clearly interact with it. And you are profoundly incorrect when you claim that science eliminates the mind from its method.

By contrast I claim mind is the context within which the Physical Universe exists in the first place....****thus providing a philosophical answer to a philosophical question instead of sticking my head in the sand and trying (hopelessly) to use science to answer a non-scientific question****

This provides no answers at all, because you can't explain what "Mind" is. Simply giving the same name to "Everything that exists" that you typically use to refer to your own consciousness, does not answer any questions! All it does is introduce unnecessary conceptual baggage.

In addition, if the Universe is made of matter you have great difficulties explaining what 'mind' is, as has been painfully demonstrated on this board almost continually for the last 2 years!

1) I define "matter" to mean "What the Universe is made of", so there is no "if" about it. If Idealism is correct, then "matter" is just a synonym for the metamind.

2) I have no more difficulty explaining what mind is than you do. Ether way, we can only explain what minds are by observing their properties. no amount of philosophical speculation is going to get around that fact. Naming the set of everything that exists "Mind" doesn't magically tell you anything about human consciousness.

Yes, we know that my solution means science can't touch it. That does not prevent my answer being the logical one and yours being a load of non-sensical materialistic gibberish. If the Universe is made of mind, then more mind is easy to explain. If it is made of matter then you are left with the Hard Problem. YAWN.

What does it mean to say that the Universe is made of mind? That doesn't tell us anything, because we don't know yet what minds are!!! All you are doing is taking some aspect of the World we don't yet understand, and claiming that the whole world is made up of it, as though that somehow provided an understanding of it!

No, you demonstrated that human minds can create the illusion of reality. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing about "Mind".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Mind' does the same thing.

That is not an explanation. It is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. I reiterate: Mind is not the same thing as my human mind, and reality is not the same thing as my dreams. Therefore, no matter how analogous the two processes may be, they are not the same process. This is just blatant hand-waving, not an actual explanation.

Besides, since you don't know how human minds produce dreams, saying that the Metamind creates reality in the same way is just a fancy way of saying that you don't know how it does it.

You and the Meta-mind are One. Atman=Brahman. All our minds are as leaves, the metamind is the tree. We share the same root.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nonsense. It amounts to nothing more than the Solipsistic argument that reality is just my dream. Is it my dream, or the Meta-Mind's dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The metamind provides the environment and the data. You dream your dream.

More meaningless analogies.

If I am the Meta-Mind, then your Idealism is just Solipsism wearing a funny hat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mysticism is indeed Solipsism wearing a funny hat - but you have to understand it first. All these questions have answers for those who bother to go looking for them.

Your "answers" amount to nothing more than just saying "see, it does it".

If I am a part of the Meta-Mind, then your argument falls apart, because the fact that my mind can create an illusion of reality which it alone observes bears absolutely no relevance to the argument that the Meta-Mind can create an objective reality that all minds observe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, your confusion is due to the fact that you do not understand the way idealistic metaphysics works. I have offered to send you a book about it. You say you aren't interested.....

That's right. You have made it quite clear that you don't really understand it, so why should I think that reading it is going to do me any good? You have not made a convincing argument that your philosophy is anything more than incoherent nonsense. There is tons of literature on such nonsense out there. I can't waste my time reading it all. So you tell me, why is yours any different?

You are still playing word games. There is a difference between a human mind and this "Mind" you keep talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there?

You tell me. Define your terms. So far the only explanation you have given for "Mind" is "the container for the physical Universe". That doesn't sound anything like human consciousness to me.

Trika Shaivism is a form of Hindu religion that believes in one God, which they call ParamaShiva, who creates the universe within Himself out of his own pure cosmic conscious Being.

Do I need to even ask where he came from? Or how he created the Universe? Or what evidence there is that this is true? This is just standard theistic nonsense.

ParamaShiva literally means "Supreme Auspiciousness". He is considered to be essentially pure infinite featureless consciousness (called Shiva). But this Shiva aspect has an active creative side called Shakti. It is this ever-active Shakti that creates, operates, and destroys endless universes.

More incoherent nonsense. What does "pure infinite featureless consciousness" mean?

Our own consciousness, which appears so tiny and limited, is not just a part of the cosmic consciousness, but actually is the supreme consciousness in total! It just appears small and limited due to creative activity of supreme conscious Shakti which has a veiling deluding aspect (Maya Shakti). It is through this veiling deluding power that Shakti then transforms the supreme conscious experience into the experience of infinite finite conscious beings inhabiting different limited non-sentient universes. The discovery and overcoming of this Maya Shakti is then the key to spiritual liberation - the realization of one's own true nature and complete liberation from the wheel of Karma - of life and death. This process whereby the Supreme Consciousness hides from itself through its own veiling power, and then liberates itself through seeing itself as it really is, is described in 36 steps.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by what reasoning do you conclude that this is anything more than fantasy?

I have, actually. It encompasses all that exists, including your mind. Your mind can be the metamind. That is what happens during 'mystical Union'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, this tells me nothing. So the Meta-Mind encompasses all that exists. How do you go from this to the claim that it is, in fact, a "mind".That is, how do you conclude that it is capable of dreaming up a reality? All you are doing is assuming that reality is a dream in some mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I am pointing out that a relationship between mind and matter as described here provides a means whereby mind can create the illusion of matter,

No, you have just pointed out that human minds do create the illusion of matter. You have made no attempt to explain how, or why they do it. You have just made the assertion that there is some sort of Mind that created reality in the same way. you have no explanation, only unjustified assertions, and vague analogies.

by contrast to the materialists who just flap around in a quagmire of logical backwardness.

No, the materialists start by trying to understand how things actually work. you are the on is working logically backwards, by assuming the answer, and then trying to fit the evidence to it.

Not in a basic outline form like this it doesn't, but these answers are available to those who seek them. There is a whole world of literature and traditions that deal with these things. The fact that you and the other materialists write them off as meaningless even though you know little or nothing about them is your loss. But do not assume these things are not known. And don't expect me to ram them down your unwelcoming throat just to prove they exist.

I think we are confusing terms here. Unjustified assertions are not answers. Blind speculation is not an answer. You don't have any real answers. All you have are claims, which you cannot back up, which you assert are the answers.

Real answers are verifiable. unless you have a method for verifying your answers, you have no answers.

No, we already agree that human minds have the ability to create the illusion of a material world. This bears absolutely no relevance to the question of whether reality is a dream in some Meta-Mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't it?

Your memory is short and selective, Stimp. We were discussing whether 'mind creates matter' or 'matter creates mind' makes more sense.

No, we weren't, because that is a stupid dichotomy. It is also meaningless nonsense, since you won't define what you mean by "mind". Sometimes you use it to refer to human consciousness, and other times to refer to something else.

We have now agreed that mind creates the illusion of matter when you dream, and that your perceptions of a material world when awake is also an illusion. You have a 2 and a 2. Why such a struggle to make 4?

Maybe because matter is not the same as an illusion of matter, and because we have no reason to believe that the objective reality that we all seem to share is, itself, and illusion generated by some mystical mind?

You are offering completely blind speculation here. Why should I be impressed?

And unlike your idealism, materialism provides a method for trying to figure out how human minds create dreams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your bottom line, as usual. Science can't use this hypothesis so I will reject it, even if materialism is illogical and idealism is the only basis of a TOE.

You have not demonstrated that materialism is illogical, and it is quite clear that Idealism cannot provide a theory of everything, because it lacks the capability of verification.

How sad. Materialism turned into sciences sacred cow.

Nothing is sacred. Science, unlike idealism, is useful.

As I said before, this tells me nothing. You still need to explain how the Meta-Mind creates reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I offered you a book, Stimp....

I don't want a book. I want the "simple explanation" that you claimed you have.

Simply pointing out that human minds create the illusion of matter in dreams does not do this. All you have is an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I offered you a book, Stimp. You say you don't want it!

That is because your book is just more of the same. Nothing but unsupported and unsupportable assertions. Or are you going to claim that this book actually documents reliable evidence in support of its claims? Does it provide a demonstrably reliable method for verifying what it claims? If not, then I am not interested.

And all the Universe needs to do is store the information. You are just playing word games here. How is your Meta-Mind different than the Materialistic conception of the Universe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It exists in an eternal present instead of an illusory linear time, and it is made of mind. Matter is mere information.

Get with the program, UCE. Modern materialism does not have anything to do with linear time, and also approaches matter from the point of view of information. It just doesn't muck around with a bunch of silly metamind nonsense.

What additional characteristics does it have? And why do you think it has them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would take me 10 pages to answer that. One step at a time.

Then just name some of them. So far, you haven't named any.

If that is all it is, then you just have Materialism. Your Meta-Mind is just the universe. What else do you claim about it, that makes it an actual mind, instead of just "all that exists"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that exists is a mind.

Is that a definition of the word mind? Or a description of all that exists? If the former, then you are just using the word mind where I would use the word matter. If the latter, then you need to define mind.

You still haven't told me what the Meta-Mind is!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is ISNESS. It is all BEING. It is 'I' - every "I".

I believe its self-definition in the OT was "Tell them that I am sent you".

I cannot extract any meaning from any of this.

Don't bother sending me the book. I am not interested in pointless metaphysical speculation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are pretty desperate to go on being able to deride it as pointless, continually accuse me of not being able to define it, but when I offer to supply you with the information you claim does not exist you decline my offer.

We haven't gotten to that stage yet. If you want me to study your religion, then you need to convince me that it is worth studying. You have not done that.

So far, what you saying looks like the standard theistic nonsense to me. Do you have any evidence to support it, or just vague analogies and metaphors?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Q-Source]

Geoff,

Don't say you're leaving the board permanently.

When you say that materialism is false, you're only referring to its explanation provided to the Mind/body problem, aren't you?.
Don't say you're leaving the board permanently.

However, it still works pretty well to describe interactions in what we interpret as physical reality.
Don't say you're leaving the board permanently.

Q

 

[Guest]

Stimpson :

We have taken this as far as it is possible to take it. In amongst your indignation there were some pertinent questions, but I feel uncomfortable about providing answers in this sort of environment, and as part of a debate such as this. I'd provide these answers only to a person who I felt was genuinely interested, and actually wanted to know them. And they would be no more than signposts - we have left the world of objectively verifiable scientific truth behind and entered the admittedly murky world of mystical philosophy in search of the secrets of existence. These things have remained hidden for very good reasons. I told you before that all I could do was show you the door, but that you must walk through it yourself. You replied that you knew already that only madness lay on the other side, and among other things, madness does lie on the other side.

But then so does the only true escape from an increasingly insane world lie beyond that door.

Real answers are verifiable. unless you have a method for verifying your answers, you have no answers.

Real answers are indeed verifiable. If the model of Reality described by Hinduism, mysticism in general (and most explicitly expressed in Trika Shaivism) is correct then these answers can be verified in the most profound, most certain way possible - it can be experienced directly. What better way can there be of verifying that your mind is capable of Union with the Metamind than to experience that Union directly. Just for a moment, consider that it might be true. If you yourself had direct knowledge that this was the truth how would you go about trying to convince others that it was true? Even if you thought you could logically prove it, would that be the right way to do it? Or would it be better just to try to lead an exemplary life and do what you could to convince others to seek those answers themselves? Here lies my apprensiveness to go further down this line of debate, and my insistence that no scientific proof can be had. I do not want to live in a world where this has been objectively or scientifically proven to the wider world. And in no way would I claim to have led an exemplary life. I must leave mystical teaching to those who have that calling. I am only of use to describe my own process of discovering the flaws in the scientific materialism I ascribed to for so long, in the hope that others will also get to grips with the problem, and hopefully be provoked into seeking an understanding of the solution.

Geoff.

 

[Guest]

Don't say you're leaving the board permanently.

Well, I didn't say that because then I would have been guaranteed to come back......but I'm really not sure what there is left for me to say.

When you say that materialism is false, you're only referring to its explanation provided to the Mind/body problem, aren't you?.

However, it still works pretty well to describe interactions in what we interpret as physical reality.

When I say it is false I mean it is an incomplete description of reality. It works as a model for the behaviour of what we interpret as physical reality, with certain specific exceptions. Those exceptions are to do with randomness (or the lack of) and time (or the lack of) and the relationship between mind and physical reality. Only at the extremes of the material existence does this matter - in interpreting quantum physics, in understanding the nature of time, in getting to grips with consciousness and in finding answers to the ultimate questions about why the Universe exists, why it appears to be engineered, what we should make of Free Will and Determinism and the existence and nature of Infinity.

I think much of this has been known since the dawn of civilisation in one way or another, and that in a perfect world it could be known far more widely. Unfortunately the human race has barely progressed above the status of wild animals. We are not even civilised, let alone ready for the long-predicted day when humanity collectively grows up and recognises what it truly is. If Franko was still here he would try to convince you that such a day should never come. And maybe he would be right.

 

[LeFevre]

or the door you went through UCE was the wrong one, you went into the one that leads to madness. I'm not sure there is even a half ass way to tell, for you personally with your own personal experiences, if you have decended into madness (and not just you UCE, basically anyone. Think Franko).

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

We have taken this as far as it is possible to take it. In amongst your indignation there were some pertinent questions, but I feel uncomfortable about providing answers in this sort of environment, and as part of a debate such as this. I'd provide these answers only to a person who I felt was genuinely interested, and actually wanted to know them. And they would be no more than signposts - we have left the world of objectively verifiable scientific truth behind and entered the admittedly murky world of mystical philosophy in search of the secrets of existence. These things have remained hidden for very good reasons. I told you before that all I could do was show you the door, but that you must walk through it yourself. You replied that you knew already that only madness lay on the other side, and among other things, madness does lie on the other side.

But then so does the only true escape from an increasingly insane world lie beyond that door.

I know for certain that madness lies beyond the door, and I have only the say-so of people who appear to have embraced madness to assure me that there is anything else beyond it. Unfortunately, such people are ill equipped to distinguish between madness and enlightenment.

Real answers are verifiable. unless you have a method for verifying your answers, you have no answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real answers are indeed verifiable. If the model of Reality described by Hinduism, mysticism in general (and most explicitly expressed in Trika Shaivism) is correct then these answers can be verified in the most profound, most certain way possible - it can be experienced directly. What better way can there be of verifying that your mind is capable of Union with the Metamind than to experience that Union directly.

Unfortunately, we already know that such direct experience is unreliable. Or more precisely, our subjective interpretations of such experiences are unreliable. That renders verification impossible. This is true whether materialism is true or false. Either way, your philosophy leads nowhere.

Just for a moment, consider that it might be true. If you yourself had direct knowledge that this was the truth how would you go about trying to convince others that it was true?

I have no idea what direct knowledge is supposed to be. The only kind of knowledge I am aware of is conditional, and the result of interpreting my experiences within a logical framework.

I am afraid that what you are calling knowledge is nothing more than your unreliable subjective interpretations of your experiences. That is not knowledge, in any meaningful sense of the term. Not unless you completely reject the notion of objective reality, and resort to some sort of Solipsism.

Even if you thought you could logically prove it, would that be the right way to do it? Or would it be better just to try to lead an exemplary life and do what you could to convince others to seek those answers themselves? Here lies my apprensiveness to go further down this line of debate, and my insistence that no scientific proof can be had. I do not want to live in a world where this has been objectively or scientifically proven to the wider world.

What does what you want have to do with anything?

And in no way would I claim to have led an exemplary life. I must leave mystical teaching to those who have that calling. I am only of use to describe my own process of discovering the flaws in the scientific materialism I ascribed to for so long, in the hope that others will also get to grips with the problem, and hopefully be provoked into seeking an understanding of the solution.

Whatever. I still say that all of the so-called flaws in materialism that you have pointed out amount to begging the question that it is false.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

or the door you went through UCE was the wrong one, you went into the one that leads to madness. I'm not sure there is even a half ass way to tell, for you personally with your own personal experiences, if you have decended into madness (and not just you UCE, basically anyone. Think Franko).

Oh I am thinking Franko alright (see my post to Q). Nobody on this board understands Franko like I do, and nobody on this board understands me like Franko does. We have both been through that door and we have both tasted madness. My problem was that having discovered the door I charged through like an Elephant in through the door of a china shop. The door is real. The truth lies behind it. But it is not for the faint-hearted, and it is not for those who seek for personal power.

 

[davidsmith73]

I have no idea what direct knowledge is supposed to be.

When you experience redness you have direct knowledge that you are experiencing redness (whether you are hallucinating or looking at traffic lights!)

 

[hammegk]

or the door you went through UCE was the wrong one, you went into the one that leads to madness. I'm not sure there is even a half ass way to tell, for you personally with your own personal experiences, if you have decended into madness (and not just you UCE, basically anyone. Think Franko).

There is no "wrong" door. Your *I* will accept whatever part of the experience it can accept.

At the scientistic level think of exploring the less likely probabilities; that's all. TLON will not care.

Does a materialist just experience a wavicle impinging on the optic nerve & neurons/biochem reacting?

 

[davidsmith73]

Absolutely they (qualia) are real in the same sense as position and momentum, and other mathematically quantifiable things. Materialism does not hold that these things are not real, or that they do not exist, but rather that they are reducible to such mathematical descriptions.

I define redness as an aspect of qualia. I don't think I have to define redness any further in order to understand what we are talking about, and I assume you experience it just like me. If your branch of materialism defines physical reality (the only realm) by mathematical descriptions then consider this:

all our mathematical descriptions are derived from what we call our experience of qualia which includes the redness of red. An observation must manifest as qualia. Therefore the ultimate "stuff" that these mathematical descriptions refer to is our qualia. It is obvious that redness can be symbolised by mathematics but this description is just another form of qualia. The ultimate reality that this mathemaical description is linked to is our experience of redness. The mathematical description alone is our experience of exactly that - not redness. The two are merely correlated (whatever that means )

Ultimately, the only tool we have for understanding concepts is logic, and mathematics is a language for expressing logic. So when you get down to the fundamentals, any explanation amounts to a mathematical description.

But even under your materialism, a mathematical explanation is not the nature of reality so what do you think it is ?

 

[davidsmith73]

What does it mean to say that the Universe is made of mind? That doesn't tell us anything, because we don't know yet what minds are!!! All you are doing is taking some aspect of the World we don't yet understand, and claiming that the whole world is made up of it, as though that somehow provided an understanding of it!

Lets replace "mind" with "qualia" to make things a little easier, a form of which is the redness of red. You know what redness is without the need for any other reference. In the absense of language you would not even label it with a word. In the same sense that you would say matter is the stuff that constitutes electrons, protons etc, I think UCE is using Mind to refer to the stuff that constitutes redness, yellowness, pain, joy or any qualia you choose to pick. These things are the reality.

 

[Q-Source]

......but I'm really not sure what there is left for me to say.

If you know something that we don't know then you have a lot of things to say.

When I say it is false I mean it is an incomplete description of reality. It works as a model for the behaviour of what we interpret as physical reality, with certain specific exceptions. Those exceptions are to do with randomness (or the lack of) and time (or the lack of) and the relationship between mind and physical reality.

Those exceptions are a moot point, but in general I think that you are correct. Materialism provides an incomplete explanation of reality (subjective and objective), however you should recognise that -even with its shortcomings- Materialism is the only frame of reference that has been proved to be coherent with the physical reality.

I am not defending a belief system, but it is the only one that seems to work pretty well. Has any alternative been provided?

From the site www.nobeliefs.com I got this interesting quote:

If we fail to understand the difference between what occurs in our minds and what occurs outside our minds, we can confuse the symbols for the things they represent; we have the capacity to act on things that exist only in our heads while believing they exist outside our heads.
...

Symbols of belief that do not interact with outside objects, either though our bodies or artificial sensors, lead to no such understanding of the world.

You were a materialist skeptic before, you should understand how the understanding of the Universe works.

I think much of this has been known since the dawn of civilisation in one way or another, and that in a perfect world it could be known far more widely. Unfortunately the human race has barely progressed above the status of wild animals. We are not even civilised, let alone ready for the long-predicted day when humanity collectively grows up and recognises what it truly is. If Franko was still here he would try to convince you that such a day should never come. And maybe he would be right.

I just wonder why those civilisations and those people who really know what's behind the door are not capable of explainging themselves coherently and objectively.

Why everything has to be obscure, hidden, secret, magical, mental and mystical...?
Have any technological advance and human's understanding been achieved through their frame of reference? Maybe you think that this is not what it matters, that's why you say that we're still wild animals.

You people have a lot of work to do then.

 

[Q-Source]

Lets replace "mind" with "qualia" to make things a little easier, a form of which is the redness of red. You know what redness is without the need for any other reference. In the absense of language you would not even label it with a word. In the same sense that you would say matter is the stuff that constitutes electrons, protons etc, I think UCE is using Mind to refer to the stuff that constitutes redness, yellowness, pain, joy or any qualia you choose to pick. These things are the reality.

So, explain to me what the Universe was before any conscious human existed.

There was no reality?

It was neccesary to wait millions of years for human's conciousness to develop in order to get a Universe?

 

[Valmorian]

Gosh! Oh well! So much for the hundredth monkey phenomenon! One would be ill-advised to question what Skep Dick asserts!

Perhaps you should check the references following the article, instead of indulging your favourite passtime of frothing at the mouth?

 

[Guest]

So, explain to me what the Universe was before any conscious human existed.

There was no reality?

It was neccesary to wait millions of years for human's conciousness to develop in order to get a Universe?

Participatory Anthropic Principle

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

DavidSmith73,

I have no idea what direct knowledge is supposed to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you experience redness you have direct knowledge that you are experiencing redness (whether you are hallucinating or looking at traffic lights!)

I would say that is quite a different usage of the word "knowledge" than what UCE and I were referring to. In this case, you are talking about an experience. Sure, in some sense I "know" that I am having the experience, but I do not necessarily have any knowledge of what that experience means, what its significance is, or anything else about it, for that matter.

The fact that we experience things is not, and never has been, in question. The question is how do we interpret those experiences? What information can be extracted from them? The scientific method is the only method we have for reliably extracting information from our experiences. When UCE talks about having "direct knowledge that his philosophy is right, due to his experiences", this is nonsense. Somehow he must extract the information that his philosophy is correct, from those experiences.

UCE's argument seems to be that it is somehow possible to extract reliable information about the nature of reality from mystical experiences, but when asked what the method for this extraction is, he says that it is direct experience. He is essentially ignoring the fact that experiences alone do not provide any information. Those experiences must be interpreted, and that interpretation must be made within some logical framework. And most importantly of all, there must be some way to verify that the interpretation is correct. He is essentially claiming that the experience itself is the verification for the interpretation of the experience. Once again, this is nonsensical.

Absolutely they (qualia) are real in the same sense as position and momentum, and other mathematically quantifiable things. Materialism does not hold that these things are not real, or that they do not exist, but rather that they are reducible to such mathematical descriptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I define redness as an aspect of qualia. I don't think I have to define redness any further in order to understand what we are talking about, and I assume you experience it just like me. If your branch of materialism defines physical reality (the only realm) by mathematical descriptions then consider this:

all our mathematical descriptions are derived from what we call our experience of qualia which includes the redness of red. An observation must manifest as qualia. Therefore the ultimate "stuff" that these mathematical descriptions refer to is our qualia. It is obvious that redness can be symbolised by mathematics but this description is just another form of qualia. The ultimate reality that this mathemaical description is linked to is our experience of redness. The mathematical description alone is our experience of exactly that - not redness. The two are merely correlated (whatever that means )

If you look into logical positivism, you will find that this is exactly how it works. The entire mathematical language of science is constructed in terms of experiences, although they typically refer to observations, rather than qualia or experiences, by virtue of the fact that subjective bias must be controlled for before any reliable information can be extracted from the experience.

The only thing "materialistic" about it, is the implicit assumption that the experience is not all there is, but rather that there is an objective reality that we are experiencing.

Keep in mind that these are essentially semantic arguments, having to do with how we label things, and how we must describe things in terms of other things. The fact that the only language we have for describing reality is one which uses our experiences as its basic components, is a reflection of the way we acquire information about reality, and not necessarily a reflection of the nature of reality itself. It would be both premature and extremely egotistical, to assume that just because we must describe reality in terms of our experiences, that reality is somehow ontologically dependent on our consciousness.

Ultimately, the only tool we have for understanding concepts is logic, and mathematics is a language for expressing logic. So when you get down to the fundamentals, any explanation amounts to a mathematical description.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But even under your materialism, a mathematical explanation is not the nature of reality so what do you think it is ?

Are you asking me what I think the fundamental nature of reality is? I don't know. More importantly, I don't have any way to find out. I don't have to like it, that's just the way it is. What I can do is build up as complete and accurate a description of reality as is possible given the tools I have. Blind speculation and philosophical pontificating aren't going to get me any closer to the truth. That is why I consider ontology to be a meaningless concept.

What does it mean to say that the Universe is made of mind? That doesn't tell us anything, because we don't know yet what minds are!!! All you are doing is taking some aspect of the World we don't yet understand, and claiming that the whole world is made up of it, as though that somehow provided an understanding of it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets replace "mind" with "qualia" to make things a little easier, a form of which is the redness of red.

OK, fine. In that case, we have "The Universe is made of qualia". This is nothing more than a rejection of objective reality. It is solipsism, and is totally pointless.

Materialism, and indeed any philosophy which is not just a fancy form of Solipsism, requires that the World not be made of qualia. Under Materialism, the assumption is that our subjective experiences (qualia) are our source of information about reality, and not reality itself.

You know what redness is without the need for any other reference.

Not really. You learn how to experience redness, just as you learn anything else. How you experience redness depends on all sorts of things, including the other types of stimuli that you were exposed to, along with the color red. All of these associations contribute to that experience. The idea that human beings possess some innate ability to experience things like redness, has been demonstrated to be wrong through science. Even very basic things like experiencing redness are learned. you just don't remember learning them.

In the absense of language you would not even label it with a word. In the same sense that you would say matter is the stuff that constitutes electrons, protons etc, I think UCE is using Mind to refer to the stuff that constitutes redness, yellowness, pain, joy or any qualia you choose to pick. These things are the reality.

I agree that this is what UCE is doing. That is why I have said that his philosophy is equivalent to Solipsism.

Dr. Stupid