Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
Hello. When you prove God exists please PM me. I don't always keep track of the theists that come here to minister to the damned, and I don't want to miss the proof when it finally comes.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
1) Heard it before.
2) Not interested.
3) See logo.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
What do you want to debate? The fact that you believe? This is not up for debate; if you say you believe, you do.
If you want to debate Gawd's existence, just keep this in mind: belief is no proof.
Besides that, welcome... for now.
Quote from: aileron on April 10, 2014, 02:05:27 AM
Hello. When you prove God exists please PM me. I don't always keep track of the theists that come here to minister to the damned, and I don't want to miss the proof when it finally comes.
I cannot make any promises, but I will try to remember to PM you with a link to the post in which I prove the existence of God if and when I achieve this. And for the record I do not consider myself to be "preaching to the damned," rather I consider myself to be putting my world view to the ultimate test against the unrelenting merciless white hot coals of the Atheist Community. I appreciate the opportunity and my only aspiration is to strengthen my arguments and expose the holes and flaws in my own world view that otherwise would surely go unnoticed.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 10, 2014, 02:11:50 AM
1) Heard it before.
2) Not interested.
3) See logo.
1) I'm sure you have.
2) Hopefully someone else is then.
3) Saw it.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on April 10, 2014, 02:21:09 AM
What do you want to debate? The fact that you believe? This is not up for debate; if you say you believe, you do.
If you want to debate Gawd's existence, just keep this in mind: belief is no proof.
Besides that, welcome... for now.
I knew someone was going to do that, thanks for getting it out of the way. Surprise Surprise I'm not here to debate whether or not I believe in God, cuz you know, that would be silly. I'm here to debate the existence of God, as in whether or not God actually exists.
"Belief is no proof." I'll promise to keep this in mind as long as you do the same. :wink2:
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 03:03:44 AM
I'm here to debate the existence of God, as in whether or not God actually exists.
What god? Does your god have a name, a gender? Is his name YHWH? Does this god have a personality? If so is he a unitary or triune person? What are the attributes of this god? What are your rules of evidence for this debate?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 03:03:44 AM
I'm here to debate the existence of God, as in whether or not God actually exists.
Good luck with that. People here have possibly heard already all the arguments coming from theists at least a thousand times. You may want to check the "post your proof here" thread.
Quote"Belief is no proof." I'll promise to keep this in mind as long as you do the same. :wink2:
I do it all the time, don't worry. :wink2:
What's a 'god'?
Before you can expect any reasonable argument, you must first define your proposition.
You must define it's quality's and such. You would be amazed in how many different ways people define God.
So please do that and then you can explain why you think it exists why you think it has the attributes you think it has.
It will also give us the time to get our hunting rifles and get ready to shoot down the arguments like clay pidgeons.
But welcome to the forum.
Now, pull!
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:22 AM
I do not consider myself to be "preaching to the damned," rather I consider myself to be putting my world view to the ultimate test against the unrelenting merciless white hot coals of the Atheist Community.
I've seen that before often enough. But watching willful ignorance duck, weave, and ignore isn't all that interesting, It may please your god, but don't expect to impress anyone here.
Welcome Casparov! You seem like a friendly enough ghost! Just remember how Casper got bullied, in the cartoon, by all the other ghosts, and still maintained his friendly demeanor! :surprised:
First things first though: define (or at least identify) what you mean by God.
Which god?
Evidence or GTFO if you are here to debate.
Otherwise, welcome.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
I believe God exists.
Which one? There's like 4000 of them.
Fuck, another troll... :wall:
So you want to debate the existence of something no one can prove exists? Yeah, that's got a future.
We are atheists. We don't believe in god because there is no evidence.
You believe in god despite the lack of evidence.
Yeah, we can debate the shit out of that.
If you're here to polish your arguments, we can help with that. But I've been listening to them for years, and concluded that the closest you can get to evidence is for you to be such an obviously good person that people wonder how you got to be so righteous. That's hard to project over the internet, and skeptics are hard to persuade that 'exceptionally good' = 'relationship with the divine'. It's very persuasive to the average person, though. I think one of the main reasons the churches are losing their young people is that ethics has moved on to toleration and equal rights for gays and religious minorities. To a LOT of young people, many churches seem immorally intolerant, and who wants to go to church to be less moral?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
What's a god?
Welcome aboard Casparov! There are not always two sides to a belief or debate. This subject is not debatable anymore than evolution and Creationism is. Belief in God is based on magical thinking and faith. Atheism is based on no evidence, and evidence that an all powerful loving God that can send you to hell unless you placate Him and has a history of being a psychopath is a contradiction in terms and not logical. Also there is no need for a God to explain anything when there is empirical evidence that does. :popcorn: Solitary
(http://i.imgur.com/RicVHyd.jpg) (http://imgur.com/RicVHyd)
You can't proof you crazy ass god exists. I can however, prove superman exists, there's books and even videos of the bad ass mother fucker hiss-self.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 03:00:35 AM
1) I'm sure you have.
Depending on what miraculous wisdom you eventually decide to share with us unbelievers, it's either something I've encountered dozens or hundreds of times before. Let's just say that if it's not an argument from ignorance, appeal to tradition, non-sequitur, circular logic, false dilemma, assuming what you're trying to prove, or anecdotal evidence, then I will not only be surprised but impressed. (I'm very easily impressed)
So go ahead. Impress me.
Has anyone here taken into consideration that the Universe had to have a designer as its first cause? How else can you explain it? Betcha none of you have ever thought about that one before!
I just thought I'd get the ball rolling since we are already on page two and nothing has happened.
Quote from: SGOS on April 10, 2014, 01:17:12 PM
Has anyone here taken into consideration that the Universe had to have a designer as it's first cause? How else can you explain it? Betcha none of you have ever thought about that one before!
I just thought I'd get the ball rolling since we are already on page two and nothing has happened.
Yeah but what caused the first cause?
Quote from: leo on April 10, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Yeah but what caused the first cause?
Hmmm?? Well that is somewhat problematic. Maybe I should have started with a better question.
Quote from: leo on April 10, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Yeah but what caused the first cause?
Fool, Chuck Norris did, what else could have?
Quote from: SGOS on April 10, 2014, 01:17:12 PM
Has anyone here taken into consideration that the Universe had to have a designer as its first cause? How else can you explain it? Betcha none of you have ever thought about that one before!
I just thought I'd get the ball rolling since we are already on page two and nothing has happened.
Do landslides have a "creator"?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 10, 2014, 01:40:36 PM
Fool, Chuck Norris did, what else could have?
YEP. Nothing is more powerful than the Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Quote from: aileron on April 10, 2014, 03:17:18 AM
What god? Does your god have a name, a gender? Is his name YHWH? Does this god have a personality? If so is he a unitary or triune person? What are the attributes of this god? What are your rules of evidence for this debate?
QuoteBefore you can expect any reasonable argument, you must first define your proposition.
You must define it's quality's and such. You would be amazed in how many different ways people define God.
So please do that and then you can explain why you think it exists why you think it has the attributes you think it has.
QuoteWhat's a 'god'?
QuoteFirst things first though: define (or at least identify) what you mean by God.
QuoteWhich god?
QuoteWhich one? There's like 4000 of them.
QuoteWhat's a god?
god noun \gad also god\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.
The only name "my" (I hesitate to refer to god as if god is my personal possession but it will make communication easier so I'll just go with it) "god" has is whatever word we can all agree to use to refer to it. I prefer the word God.
A gender is obviously a ridiculous proposition. Any personality would only be a reflection of human projections onto that which is other than human.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:29:22 PM
god noun \gad also god\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.
What is a supreme reality?
What is a ultimate reality?
What is a ground of all being?
What is an infinite mind?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:29:22 PM
The only name "my" (I hesitate to refer to god as if god is my personal possession but it will make communication easier so I'll just go with it) "god" has is whatever word we can all agree to use to refer to it. I prefer the word God.
What's a 'god'?
Good, that's a beginning. But what attributes does it have?
Here are some common onces many debaters argue it has: Is your "God" all knowing? Is it all powerfull? Is it benevollent? Is it always just? Is it always honest? Is it a personal being (meaning it comes into human life and makes miracles happen and answers prayers and ...) or not? Is it flawed or flawless? Has it been around forever? Is it immortal? Is it concerned with whom you do stuff (and what stuff) at night? Is it one being or one of many or one of three but still one? Is it the creator of the Universe? Is it it's own father? ...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 10, 2014, 02:41:15 PMIs it it's own father? ...
Never heard that one before lol.
Quote from: Solitary on April 10, 2014, 11:28:25 AM
Belief in God is based on magical thinking and faith. Atheism is based on no evidence, and evidence that an all powerful loving God that can send you to hell unless you placate Him and has a history of being a psychopath is a contradiction in terms and not logical. Also there is no need for a God to explain anything when there is empirical evidence that does. :popcorn: Solitary
The eighteenth-century mathematician and famous Materialist/Atheist, Pierre-Simon Laplace, demonstrated the line of thinking you have expressed perfectly. Napoleon, when hearing about Laplace's latest book, said, 'Mr. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe and have never mentioned God once."
And Laplace responded, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-la. (Your majesté, I have not needed that particular hypothesis."
Quotethere is no need for a God to explain anything when there is empirical evidence that does.
The reason I have arrived at the conclusion that God exists is because the alternative is not convincing. The alternative, of course, being that we exist in an objective material universe. In which case the God Hypothesis would be entirely unnecessary.
I concede the point at the front that "Atheism does not equal Materialism" however it is my contention that in the great majority of cases, it is materialism which leads to the conclusion of Atheism. The two seem to go hand in hand. A Nihilist who believes absolutely nothing about anything, and is also an Atheist, obviously is not a Materialist, but also is obviously in no position to debate against. One cannot debate against someone who has absolutely no position whatsoever. As I have seen Atheists eager to debate evolution and Big Bang Theory, this leads me to believe that Atheists do have positive positions that they are willing and able to defend, and there must exist at least a few Atheists who are also Materialists. And it is these Atheists I wish to debate.
If it is true that we do indeed exist in an objective material universe, then it would obviously follow that there is no God, and I would too be an Atheist. I, however, am not convinced that we do in fact exist in a material universe. The evidence is quite simply not convincing to me.
P.S. I am well aware that all being an Atheist means is that you lack a belief in any god and nothing more. I fully accept that. But there are underlying reasons that you have come to such a belief, and if that reason is Materialism, I have a problem with that. If it is not Materialism, I'm interested in what your alternatives to Materialism are as an Atheist.
Buddhism and any other eastern philosophy
As a fellow believer, I strongly encourage for you to observe before you speak
Quote from: Solitary on April 10, 2014, 11:28:25 AM
evidence that an all powerful loving God that can send you to hell unless you placate Him and has a history of being a psychopath is a contradiction in terms and not logical.
It seems you are referring yahweh, the God of the Christian religion described in the bible. I have no wish to attempt to argue for the existence of any God as described in any singular religion. Rather, I will attempt to describe an argument for "God in general", divorced from any religious conception, but at the same time encompassing all.
I'm a materialist and I just don't believe any of the stories about 'gods' anyone ever told me.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 03:07:36 PM
It seems you are referring yahweh, the God of the Christian religion described in the bible. I have no wish to attempt to argue for the existence of any God as described in any singular religion. Rather, I will attempt to describe an argument for "God in general", divorced from any religious conception, but at the same time encompassing all.
Good. Define it please. What's a 'god'?
You said you have a God, if your not a worshiper of YHWH, then who is your God
God/intelligent force creates the universe. Why?
Creates us to worship him yes/no. If yes, why? If not, why do we exist?
QuoteA gender is obviously a ridiculous proposition. Any personality would only be a reflection of human projections onto that which is other than human.
QuoteI will attempt to describe an argument for "God in general", divorced from any religious conception, but at the same time encompassing all.
Much fun, sure good
:popcorn:
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 10, 2014, 02:11:50 AM
3) See logo.
This forum is open to theists too :p
Forgive me if I misread you.
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
God per se is usually expected to have some form and attributes; looks like Chralton Heston, can throw thunderbolts. An amorphous, non physical god with undefined attributes might more correctly be seen as an intelligent force; not supernatural. God by definition is supernatural. You might need to redefine that a little bit.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 10, 2014, 01:43:38 PM
Do landslides have a "creator"?
You are thinking mudlside.
And yes I can create as many as you want as long as I have ample Baileys, Kahlua, and vodka
Quote from: Bibliofagus on April 10, 2014, 03:10:00 PM
Good. Define it please. What's a 'god'?
It seems most of you are still confused about what I mean by "God", even after I have provided a definition. Admittedly the definition I provided does require a little bit of deep thought to see what exactly is being said, so because of this I will further expound upon what I believe "God" to be like.
The default conception of God is of some outside entity that exists somewhere "out there" apart from us that has unimaginable attributes and characteristics such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipotence, etc. Most people that believe in Gods believe in their conceived God in this way and therefore most Atheists disbelieve in Gods that are conceptualized in that way as well.
I don't believe that God is something separate from what we are. I believe that ultimately, there exists only one thing, and that thing is God, and everything, including us, are parts of it. I believe that the ultimate reality, and the ground of all being, is Mind, and I believe that source of all Mind, is God, which I have defined as "Infinite Mind."
In short: Consciousness is fundamental. We and all life forms are individual units of consciousness. And the term "God" is reserved for the ultimate source of what we are and all that exists. The entire and all encompassing coagulation of all consciousnesses together as one conscious thing is "God."
Let me now point out that in my world view it is not so much important that "God exists" nor that people "believe in God" as it is that the actual nature of reality is such that this conception of God unfolds out of it. Of course if materialism is true than this conception of God is just as fallacious and fictitious as any other. But if Materialism is false, then that changes the whole conversation entirely. So for me, I am much more interested in discovering the true nature of reality, than I am in converting people into Theists.
Perhaps now I have shed sufficient light onto what my conception of "God" is, and I can begin the actual work of debating the evidence.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:19:37 PM
It seems most of you are still confused about what I mean by "God", even after I have provided a definition. Admittedly the definition I provided does require a little bit of deep thought to see what exactly is being said, so because of this I will further expound upon what I believe "God" to be like.
The default conception of God is of some outside entity that exists somewhere "out there" apart from us that has unimaginable attributes and characteristics such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipotence, etc. Most people that believe in Gods believe in their conceived God in this way and therefore most Atheists disbelieve in Gods that are conceptualized in that way as well.
I don't believe that God is something separate from what we are. I believe that ultimately, there exists only one thing, and that thing is God, and everything, including us, are parts of it. I believe that the ultimate reality, and the ground of all being, is Mind, and I believe that source of all Mind, is God, which I have defined as "Infinite Mind."
In short: Consciousness is fundamental. We and all life forms are individual units of consciousness. And the term "God" is reserved for the ultimate source of what we are and all that exists. The entire and all encompassing coagulation of all consciousnesses together as one conscious thing is "God."
Let me now point out that in my world view it is not so much important that "God exists" nor that people "believe in God" as it is that the actual nature of reality is such that this conception of God unfolds out of it. Of course if materialism is true than this conception of God is just as fallacious and fictitious as any other. But if Materialism is false, then that changes the whole conversation entirely. So for me, I am much more interested in discovering the true nature of reality, than I am in converting people into Theists.
Perhaps now I have shed sufficient light onto what my conception of "God" is, and I can begin the actual work of debating the evidence.
^^^
pantheism
Right, so, if I understand it correctly, you're here to defend a crossbreed of pantheïsm and deïsm.
I think I could hear your case now and catch your general drift.
And evidence you say? Well, we love evidence here, so go for it.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 10, 2014, 05:30:28 PM
^^^
pantheism
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 10, 2014, 05:31:36 PM
Right, so, if I understand it correctly, you're here to defend a crossbreed of pantheïsm and deïsm.
Not quite. Pantheism as I understand it is to say that "God is the material objective universe." in which case calling it God will add no further meaning than simply just continuing to call it "the material objective universe." Pantheism is redundant and unnecessary. And Deism as I understand it is the belief that some unknowable god kicked everything off and left, in which case whether or not god exists it would make no difference, because we are still here, in the material objective universe, on our own. Deism is a cop-out.
I am arguing for neither of these two ideologies, nor a mixture of the two.
You seem to have a list of pre-debunked labels in your arsenal, and if you wish to just slap the closest label that fits onto what I am arguing for in order to dismiss it, then you are just straw-manning my argument instead of addressing it directly.
His point, it appears, is god is everything including us which makes us and the trees and ebola parts of god. I have no problem with that, at least in this case god does not require worship, acknowledgement or praise. I swear to tell the truth so help me.
Proof? Scientific evidence? Scriptures? First Cause babble?
Can you name your ideology, please, it will be less confusing
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 10, 2014, 06:05:09 PM
Can you name your ideology, please, it will be less confusing
x2 on that
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:19:37 PM
Let me now point out that in my world view it is not so much important that "God exists" nor that people "believe in God" as it is that the actual nature of reality is such that this conception of God unfolds out of it.
Can you see the source of confusion?
And, dude, yeah of course we're going to link new information to older information. That's how the human mind works. And it's not strawmanning because we're not saying: "pantheïsm, oh fuck off you've got nothing to say". We are just trying to get a grasp of what you're saying so we can evaluate it and adress it properly man, lighten up.
If yours is truly different, then by all means, state your case and show us how.
I don't think he is confusing at all...why back in the late 70's when lousy pot, mescaline, and free sex was the rage we all sat around naked smoking and drinkin and buzzin being god and all. Peace people, love and all dat,,anybody got a tighty?
Deism may not be specifically defined as a dogmatic religion, BUT a god by definition is supernatural; beyond human explanation. If we postulate an infinite being that yet at some point could be described mathematically scientifically or otherwise, it is not therefore superstition and therefore not god.
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 06:13:45 PM
I don't think he is confusing at all...why back in the late 70's when lousy pot, mescaline, and free sex was the rage we all sat around naked smoking and drinkin and buzzin being god and all. Peace people, love and all dat,,anybody got a tighty?
I was born in the late 80s.
The 70s was before I found myself.
[spoiler](http://twanzphobic.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sperm_egg1.jpg)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:29:22 PMAny personality would only be a reflection of human projections onto that which is other than human.
So the god you believe in does not have a personality? No love, anger, happiness, thoughts, feelings, emotions? Christians scholars consider the god of Christianity to be a personal god. Is the one you believe in a personal god?
The problem with words, the beginning of a world of nonsense and delusional insanity, instead of a world of reality. What difference would the world of reality have been, or is now, whether a God or gods existed or not, it would be exactly the same as it is as long as we are animals first and intellectual second. Religion, philosophy, and psychiatry, are all human opinions and nothing more. So is science, but at least it is dealing with the world of reality and empirical evidence and not just the imagination with no evidence accept primitive emotional reactions to reality from writings thousands of years old by ignorant people saying God spoke to them. Prefrontal epilepsy or schizophrenia, as well as moldy rye bread and other psychedelics anyone :fU: Solitary
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 10, 2014, 06:19:15 PM
I was born in the late 80s.
The 70s was before I found myself.
[spoiler](http://twanzphobic.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sperm_egg1.jpg)[/spoiler]
You should goddamn spoil that shit....man that is indecent...
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 06:29:53 PM
You should goddamn spoil that shit....man that is indecent...
It is? I figured it would be fine and I usually get a few good laughs from that one... but I'll delete it if you want.
I don't think there is a spoiler option in this new forum yet...
Sent via your mom
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 10, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
It is? I figured it would be fine and I usually get a few good laughs from that one... but I'll delete it if you want.
I don't think there is a spoiler option in this new forum yet...
Sent via your mom
:think:
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 06:38:40 PM
:think:
Yeah... "sent via your mom" is my phone signature lol It's not as good as hijiri's "titty sprinkles" one.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 10, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
I don't think there is a spoiler option in this new forum yet...
Sent via your mom
No spoiler? Worked for me LOL
Quote from: wolf39us on April 10, 2014, 06:46:37 PM
No spoiler? Worked for me LOL
lol which one is it? I even tried to do [spoil] test[/spoil]
EDIT: Oh. you have to do [spoiler] ...... -____-
I'm having an off day... lmao
sarcasm son....sarcasm
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 06:57:02 PM
sarcasm son....sarcasm
So are you saying you did like my "finding myself" joke? Throw me a bone here haha
Quote from: stromboli on April 10, 2014, 06:18:23 PM
Deism may not be specifically defined as a dogmatic religion, BUT a god by definition is supernatural; beyond human explanation. If we postulate an infinite being that yet at some point could be described mathematically scientifically or otherwise, it is not therefore superstition and therefore not god.
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 06:13:45 PM
I don't think he is confusing at all...why back in the late 70's when lousy pot, mescaline, and free sex was the rage we all sat around naked smoking and drinkin and buzzin being god and all. Peace people, love and all dat,,anybody got a tighty?
Ha! I got a mix of what you described and "the force" out of his description.
The Force- of course! :doh:
Oh man. I forgot that there is a religion based on star wars until ^ that post^ hahaha
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 10, 2014, 06:05:09 PM
Can you name your ideology, please, it will be less confusing
If I were forced at gunpoint to apply a label to my ideology, I would reluctantly choose:
PANENTHEISM
... but only under duress, and I would emphatically remind everyone that no label should be confused with the actual ideology it is supposed to be describing.
Thank u
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 10, 2014, 07:00:21 PM
So are you saying you did like my "finding myself" joke? Throw me a bone here haha
I was making a joke about the obvious sexual reference to fertilization that if people knew what it really was would .....oy...never mind..
lol they really need to invent something that makes it easier to sense sarcasm.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 10, 2014, 09:17:16 PM
lol they really need to invent something that makes it easier to sense sarcasm.
they're called smilies
:pidu:
"In panentheism, the God/dess is not viewed as the creator or autonomous power, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of the God/dess. The cosmos exists within the God/dess, who in turn “pervades†or is “in†the cosmos, is in us. While pantheism asserts that the God/dess and the universe share the same area, panentheism believes the God/dess is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within the God/dess."
Gotcha. Proof?
(edit) Tyson did say we were made of stardust. :biggrin:
My religion of Panotheuism is far better than Panentheism
Can I still be stardust?
nah, yer still an old fart
Evidence or STFU!
Quote from: GalacticBusDriver on April 10, 2014, 10:33:05 PM
Evidence or STFU!
HEY! Where the fuck you been boy? Haven't seen you in awhile.
Quote from: aitm on April 10, 2014, 10:34:06 PMHEY! Where the fuck you been boy? Haven't seen you in awhile.
Just hangin' around. Lurkin' more than postin' and being obsessed with Skyrim.
Quote from: wolf39us on April 10, 2014, 03:37:59 PM
This forum is open to theists too :p
Forgive me if I misread you.
Open to theists? Yes.
Great place to preach? Not so much.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
The reason I have arrived at the conclusion that God exists is because the alternative is not convincing. The alternative, of course, being that we exist in an objective material universe. In which case the God Hypothesis would be entirely unnecessary.
Just out of curiosity: what is not convincing about the "alternative"? That we exist in a universe, that this universe is material or that it is objective?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:19:37 PM
It seems most of you are still confused about what I mean by "God", even after I have provided a definition. Admittedly the definition I provided does require a little bit of deep thought to see what exactly is being said, so because of this I will further expound upon what I believe "God" to be like.
The default conception of God is of some outside entity that exists somewhere "out there" apart from us that has unimaginable attributes and characteristics such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipotence, etc. Most people that believe in Gods believe in their conceived God in this way and therefore most Atheists disbelieve in Gods that are conceptualized in that way as well.
I don't believe that God is something separate from what we are. I believe that ultimately, there exists only one thing, and that thing is God, and everything, including us, are parts of it. I believe that the ultimate reality, and the ground of all being, is Mind, and I believe that source of all Mind, is God, which I have defined as "Infinite Mind."
In short: Consciousness is fundamental. We and all life forms are individual units of consciousness. And the term "God" is reserved for the ultimate source of what we are and all that exists. The entire and all encompassing coagulation of all consciousnesses together as one conscious thing is "God."
Let me now point out that in my world view it is not so much important that "God exists" nor that people "believe in God" as it is that the actual nature of reality is such that this conception of God unfolds out of it. Of course if materialism is true than this conception of God is just as fallacious and fictitious as any other. But if Materialism is false, then that changes the whole conversation entirely. So for me, I am much more interested in discovering the true nature of reality, than I am in converting people into Theists.
Perhaps now I have shed sufficient light onto what my conception of "God" is, and I can begin the actual work of debating the evidence.
Oversimplifying it, I'd say your idea of god resembles "The Matrix".
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:46:56 PM
Not quite. Pantheism as I understand it is to say that "God is the material objective universe." in which case calling it God will add no further meaning than simply just continuing to call it "the material objective universe." Pantheism is redundant and unnecessary. And Deism as I understand it is the belief that some unknowable god kicked everything off and left, in which case whether or not god exists it would make no difference, because we are still here, in the material objective universe, on our own. Deism is a cop-out.
I am arguing for neither of these two ideologies, nor a mixture of the two.
You seem to have a list of pre-debunked labels in your arsenal, and if you wish to just slap the closest label that fits onto what I am arguing for in order to dismiss it, then you are just straw-manning my argument instead of addressing it directly.
It still seems to me like you're just calling what everyone else calls the universe, "god". If this isn't what you're doing, please explain yourself.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 11, 2014, 04:24:19 AM
It still seems to me like you're just calling what everyone else calls the universe, "god". If this isn't what you're doing, please explain yourself.
His universe has got a hive mind.
Luke......use the force...
Quote from: aitm on April 11, 2014, 08:02:14 AM
Luke......use the force...
Are we talking Yoda or Darth Vader? I sense a movement in The Force.....
Quote from: stromboli on April 11, 2014, 10:22:55 AM
Are we talking Yoda or Darth Vader? I sense a movement in The Force.....
I had a movement earlier and it required some force...
Awaiting proof to back up belief of god's existence. Awaiting. With bated breath. Or something.
I'm disappointed in casaprov
I believe in Harvey Dent!
... Casparov's ability to back up his claims... not so much.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on April 11, 2014, 02:12:39 AM
Just out of curiosity: what is not convincing about the "alternative"? That we exist in a universe, that this universe is material or that it is objective?
QuoteIt still seems to me like you're just calling what everyone else calls the universe, "god". If this isn't what you're doing, please explain yourself.
I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?
There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.
The bottom line is thus:
That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)I admit that if Materialism is true, then Atheism is a quite valid conclusion to come to, for if Materialism is true there is no need for any kind of "God" to exist. But the fact is, Materialism is a baseless assumption. It works, don't get me wrong, just as the Flat Earth Theory still works to this day when building a house or running on a soccer field, just as Newtonian Physics works when playing billiards or dropping fruit from buildings, but in the end, just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.
To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.
If you are a Materialist, then you are making a Positive Claim about reality, and it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. The Burden of Proof applies to all positive claims, not just one's that you don't agree with.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?
There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.
The bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)
I admit that if Materialism is true, then Atheism is a quite valid conclusion to come to, for if Materialism is true there is no need for any kind of "God" to exist. But the fact is, Materialism is a baseless assumption. It works, don't get me wrong, just as the Flat Earth Theory still works to this day when building a house or running on a soccer field, just as Newtonian Physics works when playing billiards or dropping fruit from buildings, but in the end, just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.
To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.
If you are a Materialist, then you are making a Positive Claim about reality, and it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. The Burden of Proof applies to all positive claims, not just one's that you don't agree with.
There is no proof of Material Objective Universe just like there is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. That reality is made up of matter is not a presupposition as you are inclined to believe but it is a conclusion from 500 years of scientific investigation that there is no spiritual/immaterial world. Every claim of a spiritual/immaterial case has been debunked through those 5 centuries. If you have proof of a spiritual/immaterial case, then bring it out. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.
Aren't you all forgetting something. The OP included the emoticon with FLOWERS, PROOF of gods love!
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
Concrete made from a recipe is hard. Made each time from that same recipe is equally hard and hardens in the same way. Atoms exist, molecules exist, and have the same properties now they had when first identified. That which can be tested and identified can be assumed as "real" because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
By the way, proof itself is a material thing, and you have not offered that.
I am disappoint. :sad2:
(edit) Get your head out of the philosophy books and go kick a boulder. Tell me if its real or not.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 11, 2014, 01:46:33 PM
I believe in Harvey Dent!
... Casparov's ability to back up his claims... not so much.
But the joker corrupted this harvey dude. Proving his point that most "good" people can be turn evil. Shit I'm crazy arguing about a movie! Like people arguing about their religious dogmas.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:51:25 PMThe bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)
Burden of proof shifting combined with Betcha Can't Prove A Negative.
And this sort of shoddy logic from the guy who's supposed to lead us heathens to God. So disappointing.
QuoteI admit that if Materialism is true, then Atheism is a quite valid conclusion to come to, for if Materialism is true there is no need for any kind of "God" to exist.
Hardly. That's the sort of argument we can make now. In your scenario, we could dispense with that argument entirely and falsify the god hypothesis. If materialism (the idea that all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things) were true, then supernatural entities do not exist by definition. The frustratingly vague term, "God", is nonetheless defined as a supernatural being. Ergo, God does not exist.
QuoteTo disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.
And here's Atheists Have Faith, Too! (C). Yikes.
Yanno, I think there was a theist who recently put up a thread saying how they'd like to understand atheism. I suggest you'd try that out first.
That was it? 7 pages and that was it? Boy, you got to do better than that.
And I meant that. Kick a boulder in your street shoes. You will experience pain. You will do physical damage to your foot. The pain will be very real to you. If you take painkillers the pain will lessen but will return after a time. You will experience the physical sensation and also the mental anguish of pain. the damage done to your foot will be there every time you look, but over time will heal and diminish. there will be a mark on the boulder that will be there until it is weathered or rubbed away.
the healing and loss of the mark both demonstrate the passage of time, an aspect of the material universe.
This is not A Priori, this is objectively real. Every time you kick the boulder it will be just as hard and the damage to your foot and the pain will be the same. This is reproducibility, another aspect of the material universe.
the density of the boulder will not change. Your foot will still be hurt every time you kick the boulder. this is consistency, another aspect of the material universe.
Go kick a boulder. You lose.
Jesus H. Christ! Atheism is not based on faith with no evidence, It is based on sound reasoning with no evidence. Give me a break! This is not a personal attack, but just common sense, the idea of a God without evidence is about as stupid and childish as one can get. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on April 11, 2014, 03:32:47 PM
Jesus H. Christ! Atheism is not based on faith with no evidence, It is based on sound reasoning with no evidence. Give me a break! This is not a personal attack, but just common sense, the idea of a God without evidence is about as stupid and childish as one can get. Solitary
Oh, go on, you silly materialist you! :biggrin:
So now the flower emoticon deniers come out.. tsk tsk
Read through the thread now ... Ok, so basically you are convinced that a magical being/essence/force must exist because one potential other explanation doesn't sound right to you? That's a seriously horrible reasoning.
Listen, until something is proven to at least be likely there's is no honest intellectual way to genuinely believe in something. Until such a time it is best to sustain from claiming any belief. In the case of anything remotely resembling the god idea, nothing indicates this. We have no examples of a mind existing without a mind. We have nothing implicating any kind of sentient force doing anything in the universe. Believing in any such being/force is therefor silly and impossible to defend at this point in time - regardless of whether it actually exists.
Quote from: stromboli on April 11, 2014, 03:35:19 PM
Oh, go on, you silly materialist you! :biggrin:
Bite me! He! He!olitary
Welcome.
I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.
:wall: When you believe in things with no good reason to be true, technically that's delusional and insane.
As for why when god tells someone to do something good, people say its really god, but when god tells them to do something evil they're crazy, its called special pleading or a logical fallacy. :axe: Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.
Proof for this assertion?
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?
There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.
The bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)
I admit that if Materialism is true, then Atheism is a quite valid conclusion to come to, for if Materialism is true there is no need for any kind of "God" to exist. But the fact is, Materialism is a baseless assumption. It works, don't get me wrong, just as the Flat Earth Theory still works to this day when building a house or running on a soccer field, just as Newtonian Physics works when playing billiards or dropping fruit from buildings, but in the end, just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.
To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.
If you are a Materialist, then you are making a Positive Claim about reality, and it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. The Burden of Proof applies to all positive claims, not just one's that you don't agree with.
Yup, exactly as I thought... it's "The Matrix".
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/4061682/go-fuck-yourself-with-a-cactus-o.gif)
Quote from: Poison Tree on April 11, 2014, 04:20:49 PM
Quotejust like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.
Proof for this assertion?
I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position, which you being an Atheist should be very familiar with. Whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.
QuoteThere is no proof of Material Objective Universe just like there is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. That reality is made up of matter is not a presupposition as you are inclined to believe but it is a conclusion from 500 years of scientific investigation that there is no spiritual/immaterial world. Every claim of a spiritual/immaterial case has been debunked through those 5 centuries.
You are incorrect: "There is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist" is fine, because Santa Claus not existing does not require proof, it is a
negative claim. "There is no proof of Material Objective Universe" is not fine, because the Material Objective Universe is a
positive claim, and therefore requires proof. They are not the same.
After 500 years of scientific investigation the majority have concluded that we live in an objective Material universe. Yes, but without proof, and without evidence. It is an assumption that works in the same way Flat Earth Theory works when surveying land to build a house on. Unless you are going to simply make the Logical Fallacy of Appealing to Authority, the burden rests with whomever is making the claim that we live in an Objective Material Universe. And you have provided no evidence beyond this appeal to Authority.
It is quite possible as is shown by Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, that what we perceive as "material" is actually "immaterial" images and sensations, the apparent materiality a mere illusion. If you believe that all other explanations for our perceptions are false and Materialism is the definite answer, then you are required to present proof, because that is a positive claim about reality.
QuoteAnd I meant that. Kick a boulder in your street shoes. You will experience pain. You will do physical damage to your foot. The pain will be very real to you. If you take painkillers the pain will lessen but will return after a time. You will experience the physical sensation and also the mental anguish of pain. the damage done to your foot will be there every time you look, but over time will heal and diminish. there will be a mark on the boulder that will be there until it is weathered or rubbed away.
the healing and loss of the mark both demonstrate the passage of time, an aspect of the material universe.
This is not A Priori, this is objectively real. Every time you kick the boulder it will be just as hard and the damage to your foot and the pain will be the same. This is reproducibility, another aspect of the material universe.
the density of the boulder will not change. Your foot will still be hurt every time you kick the boulder. this is consistency, another aspect of the material universe.
Go kick a boulder. You lose.
This is a demonstration of what is commonly known as "Naive Realism". If I kick a boulder, it hurts, and there is a mark on my shoes. Apparently this
proves that we live in a Material Objective Universe.
Okay so I've had dreams before in which I experienced real pain. If I kick a boulder in a dream, it hurts.
Therefore, dreams are objective material realities. A character in in simulation, let's say, a character in Skyrim, kicks a boulder, there is mark on his shoe, the boulder doesn't budge, and the character reacts as if he is in pain and his health meter goes down a notch. This is obviously not A Priori, this is objectively real. Every time he kicks the boulder the same reaction will happen, and the same health damage will occur. The boulder will be just as hard every time he kicks it. There will be a mark on the boulder where he kicked it until it is weathered or rubbed away. The density of the boulder will not change. He will heal over time. Reproducibility is an aspect of the Material Universe, consistency is an aspect of the Material Universe,
therefore, Skyrim is a Material Objective Universe. Right?
Kicking a boulder and feeling pain is not proof that we live in a Material Universe. No more than kicking a boulder in a dream and feeling pain is proof that dreams are material universes either. No more than if you were simply a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer that is sending the exact same electrical signals through to the neural passageways in your brain to produce the exact same experience you would have when kicking a boulder. Electrical signals to your brain could easily reproduce a seemingly material reality, equipped with equal reproducibility and consistency and even the experience of pain when kicking a boulder.
That we live in a material objective universe is just one explanation of our perceptions, and it has no more proof or evidence than any of the others, it is on equal footing with Descarte's demon. Unless of course, you can actually provide some epistemological evidence or any kind of proof for your conclusion. Otherwise, at least admit it is an unsupported assumption.
QuoteWhen you believe in things with no good reason to be true, technically that's delusional and insane.
As for why when god tells someone to do something good, people say its really god, but when god tells them to do something evil they're crazy, its called special pleading or a logical fallacy.
I couldn't agree more! There is no good reason to believe in Materialism, and yet most Atheists do, and then feel intellectual superior to Theists who believe in a God for no good reason. Insanity! Delusional indeed! :wink2:
And as for why Atheists can demand proof from Theists all day everyday and then when asked for proof of their own world view think that they are somehow exempt from the Burden of Proof, also Special Pleading, also Logical Fallacy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2014, 03:15:25 PM
Burden of proof shifting combined with Betcha Can't Prove A Negative.
Obviously you agree that when a positive claim is made, whoever is making that claim, has a burden of proof, right? So what seems to be the problem? Do you not agree that asserting that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is a positive claim? Then why not just provide the proof?
I am not asking you to Prove a Negative, I'm just asking you to Prove a Positive. :rotflmao:
QuoteIf materialism (the idea that all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things) were true, then supernatural entities do not exist by definition. The frustratingly vague term, "God", is nonetheless defined as a supernatural being. Ergo, God does not exist.
I agree 100% with what you say here. If materialism is true, then that would mean that all things are composed of matter, and that nothing exists besides physical things. If God is a non-physical immaterial thing, then that would mean that God does not exist! Yes totally! I agree with you!
Now all you have left to do.... is prove that Materialism is true!
P.S. if Materialism were true, not only god, but consciousness would not exist either.
Quote from: doorknob on April 11, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
Welcome.
I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.
Thank you. I didn't expect the debate to go down in this thread specifically, as I was only introducing myself and building up my posts so I can create threads elsewhere. I am hoping to be able to debate someone One-on-One in the debates section. Do you know of anyone who would be up to the challenge on this forum?
I can tell that Me vs The Entire Atheist Forum in this thread is going to get out of hand fairly quickly...
Quote from: doorknob on April 11, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
Welcome.
I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.
You actually trying to follow this??
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 05:52:16 PM
I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position,
"but in the end[snip] Materialism is not ultimately true" most certainly IS an assertion. You
could have simply stated that Materialism has not been proven, but you didn't. You said it was not true.
a grand exercise in bullshittery
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 06:01:04 PMI am not asking you to Prove a Negative, I'm just asking you to Prove a Positive. :rotflmao:
I agree 100% with what you say here. If materialism is true, then that would mean that all things are composed of matter, and that nothing exists besides physical things. If God is a non-physical immaterial thing, then that would mean that God does not exist! Yes totally! I agree with you!
Now all you have left to do.... is prove that Materialism is true!
This is you (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/What_proof_or_evidence_do_you_have_that_atheism_is_true_and_correct%3F) (ShockOfGod). You could've been anything. But this is what you chose. May IPU have mercy on your soul.
I'm assuming (probably incorrectly) that this is a sincere challenge and you're simply spectacularly ignorant in a couple different ways. So I'm going to waste a minute or two explaining to you how atheism is not actually a positive claim. Both theists and atheists accept the existence of the natural world. That's not contested for obvious reasons. Theists go one step further and assert the existence of a God, which naturally, atheists don't accept. Take a wild guess who the burden of proof is on. If you said the atheist, then you're wrong.
QuoteP.S. if Materialism were true, not only god, but consciousness would not exist either.
So, either God and consciousness exist or both God and consciousness don't exist?? (Someone call the police, I think there's a hostage situation)
Btw, this is a false dilemma since obviously, there's no reason to suppose that consciousness couldn't exist without a God.
Remember what I said earlier? Well, this is one of the fallacies I predicted I'd find. So, I'm not impressed. I'm not even annoyed by you. Your arguments are rubbish that we've all heard before and will quickly be quickly forgotten.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 05:52:16 PM
After 500 years of scientific investigation the majority have concluded that we live in an objective Material universe. Yes, but without proof, and without evidence. It is an assumption that works in the same way Flat Earth Theory works when surveying land to build a house on. Unless you are going to simply make the Logical Fallacy of Appealing to Authority, the burden rests with whomever is making the claim that we live in an Objective Material Universe. And you have provided no evidence beyond this appeal to Authority.
Perhaps you should buy yourself a dictionary: a conclusion is not an assumption.
Secondly, if you claim that the spiritual/immaterial world exists, YOU have the burden of proof. Good luck, as you will need it.
OH NO NO there is a very definite difference between a dream occurrence and a real one. You "experience" a dream in a supposed separate reality, but when you awake, the dream experience ends. But EVERYTHING that you experienced by kicking the rock is still there. It will be there each time, no matter what your dream is. You are experiencing OBJECTIVE, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE AND REPEATABLE REALITY. NOT A PRIORI REALITY. Bullshit on your "dream" dodge.
Read what you typed. Leave the forum and come back, type again. that is repeatable experience. Time had elapsed in the meantime. In a dream, time is not measurable. In every objective way imaginable or conceived, you can measure, test, feel, experience, catalog and observe. You cannot say, other than some philosophical BS, that you have not experienced a real existence.
How else can we measure reality? You say it isn't real, but in fact you have not given anything that is proof. Proof that is objective, testable, repeatable, observable by others and so on. THIS IS HOW WE TEST REALITY-EXPERIENTIALLY. THE FACT THAT A MASS OF PEOPLE OVER CENTURIES CAN ACQUIRE, PROCESS AND EXPERIENCE THE SAME DATA OVER TIME IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE.
SHOW US SOME OTHER WAY TO TEST REALITY. GO AHEAD, SHOW US HOW TO TEST AND DETERMINE WHATEVER IT IS YOU BELIEVE. PROOF THAT IS OBJECTIVE AND TESTABLE.
Dude that's mind boggling, whether reality is real or not
That reminds me of a time when a friend asked me "are you crazy?(he was serious)" I said "no" and he said "prove it"
It then occurred to me that one cannot prove their sanity, to me, that is an amazing concept
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
Which one? Lots of dead myths you don't buy into.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2014, 07:26:42 PM
I'm assuming (probably incorrectly) that this is a sincere challenge and you're simply spectacularly ignorant in a couple different ways. So I'm going to waste a minute or two explaining to you how atheism is not actually a positive claim.
Firstly, I would like to say that I quite enjoy Matt Dilahunty and think he is a very logical person. He is someone I would love to have a conversation with.
But ShockofGod is the exact opposite of a logical person (either that or he's a troll I can't tell). I am offended that you would lump me in with ShockofGod...
SOG repeats the phrase "What proof and evidence do you have that Atheism is accurate and correct?" over and over again and then uses the fact that Atheist don't answer the unanswerable question as justification to declare some kind of victory over Atheists. He does this, but it should be obvious to every intelligent human being that he is simply asking an illogical question that cannot be answered, such as "Is the number four a bachelor?", and then celebrating a false victory when nobody can answer it.
Atheism is not a positive position, and does not require proof or evidence. I understand this and made a considerable effort to demonstrate that I understood this several times, yet here I am, having to explain this again...
I am not saying "Prove that God doesn't exist." because I understand that would be silly. What I am saying is "Prove that Materialism is true." Because I understand that what would make God an impossibility in the mind of an Atheist would be if Materialism were true. You are an Atheist because you have a world view that is not compatible with the existence of God, I am challenging your world view, which is Materialism, the positive assertion about reality that would negate the possibility of any kind of God.
I am not saying, and have never said that Atheism is a positive claim. I am saying that Materialism justifies Atheism, and Materialism is a positive claim, which requires proof just like any other positive claim.
QuoteBoth theists and atheists accept the existence of the natural world. That's not contested for obvious reasons. Theists go one step further and assert the existence of a God, which naturally, atheists don't accept. Take a wild guess who the burden of proof is on. If you said the atheist, then you're wrong.
And that is the precise reason why Theists are constantly destroyed in debates with Atheists. Both Atheists and Theists accept Materialism, and then Theists try to assert the existence of God, which is incompatible with Materialism, and thus they have already lost the debate.
You are correct in stating that if both the Atheist and the Theist accept the assertion of Materialism, and then the Theist wishes to assert further the existence of God, then the Burden rests upon the Theist for making that further assertion, and he must provide proof.
I, on the other hand, am not accepting the assertion that we live in a material objective reality. I am remaining skeptical about your assertion of Materialism, and demanding proof of that at the onset. Which you have yet to attempt in any way.
QuoteSo, either God and consciousness exist or both God and consciousness don't exist?? (Someone call the police, I think there's a hostage situation)
Btw, this is a false dilemma since obviously, there's no reason to suppose that consciousness couldn't exist without a God.
If Materialism is true, in your own words that means that "all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things". Consciousness is non-physical, therefore consciousness cannot exist if materialism is true.
The closest you've come to attempting to provide anything resembling evidence or proof for your positive claim about reality was:
QuoteBoth theists and atheists accept the existence of the natural world. That's not contested for obvious reasons.
If you cannot provide any proof for your world view, what you can at least do is admit that it is an unsupported assumption.
Quote from: stromboli on April 11, 2014, 07:31:08 PM
OH NO NO there is a very definite difference between a dream occurrence and a real one. You "experience" a dream in a supposed separate reality, but when you awake, the dream experience ends. But EVERYTHING that you experienced by kicking the rock is still there. It will be there each time, no matter what your dream is. You are experiencing OBJECTIVE, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE AND REPEATABLE REALITY. NOT A PRIORI REALITY. Bullshit on your "dream" dodge.
Read what you typed. Leave the forum and come back, type again. that is repeatable experience. Time had elapsed in the meantime. In a dream, time is not measurable. In every objective way imaginable or conceived, you can measure, test, feel, experience, catalog and observe. You cannot say, other than some philosophical BS, that you have not experienced a real existence.
I should make clear here that I am not contesting the fact that any experience is real.
All experience is real. What I am contesting is the claim that what we are experiencing is an objective material reality.
If I hallucinate an experiencing of kicking a rock and feeling pain, what a felt and experienced is always going to be
real to me, the experiencer. If I am a brain in a vat and a computer simulated the experience of me kicking a rock and feeling pain, or if I dreamt that I kicked a rock and felt pain, or if I am existing in an objective material universe and experienced kicking a rock and feeling pain, in every single one of those scenarios the
experience was real.
But experience itself is immaterial. What I am asking for is proof that what you assert about reality is correct, that we live in an objective material reality. This is a positive assertion that requires evidence, justification, proof, just like any other claim. I do not know that Nick Bostrom's Simulation argument is less probable than your argument, unless you attempt to make one!
A simulated universe would satisfy every single requirement you come up with for a material universe. Repeatable experience. Time lapse. Consistency. Reproducibility. You have given me absolutely no reason to believe that a Material Objective Universe is more plausible than a simulated one. You have provided zero proof, and zero evidence. This is because there is none, unless I am wrong, which I might be.
There are two options available to every Materialist reading this, either provide some kind of proof to justify the positive claim you are making about reality, or admit that Materialism is an unjustified assumption.
Quote from: Brian37 on April 11, 2014, 09:35:17 PM
Which one? Lots of dead myths you don't buy into.
Hi Brian,
You're a little late to the party obviously. I addressed this early in the thread.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 10:53:16 PM
You are an Atheist because you have a world view that is not compatible with the existence of God, I am challenging your world view, which is Materialism, the positive assertion about reality that would negate the possibility of any kind of God.
Oh, you've come to tell us why we are atheists? I think you'll find that a great number of us are atheist because evidence for god(s) is lacking--evidence you claimed you could provide. "You can't prove materialism, therefor god" is not evidence.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2014, 07:26:42 PM
So, I'm not impressed. I'm not even annoyed by you. Your arguments are rubbish that we've all heard before and will quickly be quickly forgotten.
I do not doubt your capacity for cognitive dissonance and selective memory.
Casper,
You seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that all Atheists believe in materialism. I am an Atheist, I have no concern over what philosophy "thinks" may or may not be the root cause of our collected experience called existence. I am an atheist because of a lack of evidence of any gods existence. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you are starting with an assumption. Lets start with some facts:
1. Evidence continues to come forward shedding light into what was once dark and unknown.
2. God used to be the explanation of these unknown dark areas.
3. As knowledge increases the area that can be attributed to god(on faith) shrinks.
4. Unless one of these remaining areas of darkness contains evidence of a god eventually the light of knowledge will eliminate god.
Now then there will be, Im sure, be people who continue to believe in god. This will be because they still have a fear of death and want something to make them feel better about themselves at night. Or it will be because that they will not understand the knowledge that is being presented to them and will denounce it much like simpletons still try to deny evolution. But as the knowledge continues to become more common place and easier to be understood those that still believe will be pushed farther and farther away from mainstream society towards the lunatic fringe.
The fact that you claim to believe in a god, and yet are unable to accurately describe what exactly it is that you believe, and yet have the unmitigated gaul to demand that we defend a position that you have assigned to us confuses me. Firstly what makes you think that you hold enough importance to warrant a defense of what some believe? Secondly, if you can't be bothered to defend your beliefs what makes you think that we would be interested in defending ours? Thirdly, what makes you think that what you are putting forward hasn't been heard countless times before?
Casper, have you been skipping your meds again?
We perceive the universe experientially. We do it though every sense, every expanded sense, every technology that stretches our senses. Sorry, but a hallucination might seem real but it is still not provable in the same sense as what we perceive as reality. We have a commonality of understanding across centuries of experience, technology, and so forth.
If a Paleontologist finds a skull of a formerly unknown animal, this is not a theoretical or fictional event, but a measurable event in objective terms. I has not been predicted, theorized or fantasized. It does not meet any criteria but that of being objectively real in space/time.
So it everything in our universe- all the laws of mathematics and science, all the elements, the physical state of matter, the hardness of concrete and so on, all together are a vast body of objective proof that the universe exists in a real way.
Objective testable proof that exists in space/time and meets every criteria of existence that we can measure. If you say well, experience is real but you haven't proven existence, by what criteria other than what I have given would you prove it? Gravity isn't touchable, tasteable, smelly or anything else but we know it is there because we have proven it through experimentation and observation. If you are saying that all the sensory methods available to us aren't proof of reality, then what is?
I haven't proven it? By what measure? Have you got a different sensory method that provides proof to back your statement?
So please sir, provide objective, testable evidence that a god exists. Or come up with some other criteria of testing that says
that the universe doesn't exist. Trust me, you close your eyes and walk through the forest, you will hit a tree.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on April 11, 2014, 11:30:46 PM
Casper,
You seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that all Atheists believe in materialism.
Hello Moral Nihilist,
I am not working under the assumption that "all Atheists believe in materialism", which I will demonstrate by quoting myself from my very first post concerning Materialism and Atheism:
QuoteI concede the point at the front that "Atheism does not equal Materialism" however it is my contention that in the great majority of cases, it is materialism which leads to the conclusion of Atheism. The two seem to go hand in hand. A Nihilist who believes absolutely nothing about anything, and is also an Atheist, obviously is not a Materialist, but also is obviously in no position to debate against. One cannot debate against someone who has absolutely no position whatsoever. As I have seen Atheists eager to debate evolution and Big Bang Theory, this leads me to believe that Atheists do have positive positions that they are willing and able to defend, and there must exist at least a few Atheists who are also Materialists. And it is these Atheists I wish to debate.
You have accused me falsely kind sir.
QuoteThe fatal flaw in your argument is that you are starting with an assumption.
This fatal flaw you accuse me of I do not suffer from. Materialism is an assumption that most people start with, but I do not, unlike the great majority of the fine Atheists in this world, suffer from that flaw.
QuoteI am an Atheist, I have no concern over what philosophy "thinks" may or may not be the root cause of our collected experience called existence. I am an atheist because of a lack of evidence of any gods existence.
I propose that to have a position about the existence of God (meaning to not be an agnostic), is to have a concern and a philosophy about what may or may not be the root cause of our collected experience called existence. Correct me if I am wrong, but you truly had no concern, you'd be an Agnostic Nihilist instead of an Atheist Nihilist.
QuoteLets start with some facts:
1. Evidence continues to come forward shedding light into what was once dark and unknown.
2. God used to be the explanation of these unknown dark areas.
3. As knowledge increases the area that can be attributed to god(on faith) shrinks.
4. Unless one of these remaining areas of darkness contains evidence of a god eventually the light of knowledge will eliminate god.
Yes but let's not forget these facts:
1) Scientific knowledge has not been a steady build, progress has instead been made through paradigm shifts.
2) It used to be scientific suicide to believe the earth was not flat, and then that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and then that atoms actually existed, and then that Newtonian Physics was false, and now that Materialism is false.
3) As knowledge increases we come to understand that what we previously held as truth was actually just an approximation.
4) If God actually exists eventually the light of knowledge will illuminate what God is. (though it most likely will turn out to be very different than what we had previously conceived)
QuoteNow then there will be, Im sure, be people who continue to believe in god. This will be because they still have a fear of death and want something to make them feel better about themselves at night. Or it will be because that they will not understand the knowledge that is being presented to them and will denounce it much like simpletons still try to deny evolution. But as the knowledge continues to become more common place and easier to be understood those that still believe will be pushed farther and farther away from mainstream society towards the lunatic fringe.
I believe you are right but only if you are referring to specific religious dogmatisms and limited conceptions of God. Surely we will grow out of these superstitious and fearful clingings to religion. But I do not believe spirituality itself is going anywhere. The only conceivable scenerio in which all spirituality and belief in afterlife and God go entirely extinct is the scenerio in which Materialism triumphs as the only possible solution, in which case all of those things would be impossible. That is precisely why I am so interested in discovering at least some tiny sliver of proof or at least one piece of evidence for this positive assertion about reality, as it's truth would indeed extinguish my own belief.
I, like anyone else, do not wish to be wandering around with a world view that is ultimately false.
QuoteThe fact that you claim to believe in a god, and yet are unable to accurately describe what exactly it is that you believe, and yet have the unmitigated gaul to demand that we defend a position that you have assigned to us confuses me. Firstly what makes you think that you hold enough importance to warrant a defense of what some believe? Secondly, if you can't be bothered to defend your beliefs what makes you think that we would be interested in defending ours? Thirdly, what makes you think that what you are putting forward hasn't been heard countless times before?
god noun \gad also god\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being :
Infinite Mind.Perhaps you skimmed over the beginning of this thread but I spent considerable time accurately describing what exactly it is I believe, and I, like anyone confronted with a positive claim that they disagree with, simply demand positive assertions meet the demands of the burden of proof. Have I no right to remain skeptical of a positive assertion that has no apparent proof or evidence to back it up? This sounds like Special Pleading to me. All positive assertions require evidence and are subject to the burden of proof. Not "all positive assertions except mine."
I am very willing to provide evidence for my own beliefs about the nature of reality, but I am intentionally holding out until after it becomes painfully clear that Materialists are not willing to provide even a sliver of evidence for theirs.
Casaprov, do u k what a scroyle is?
QuoteWe perceive the universe experientially. We do it though every sense, every expanded sense, every technology that stretches our senses. Sorry, but a hallucination might seem real but it is still not provable in the same sense as what we perceive as reality. We have a commonality of understanding across centuries of experience, technology, and so forth.
If a Paleontologist finds a skull of a formerly unknown animal, this is not a theoretical or fictional event, but a measurable event in objective terms. I has not been predicted, theorized or fantasized. It does not meet any criteria but that of being objectively real in space/time.
So it everything in our universe- all the laws of mathematics and science, all the elements, the physical state of matter, the hardness of concrete and so on, all together are a vast body of objective proof that the universe exists in a real way.
Objective testable proof that exists in space/time and meets every criteria of existence that we can measure. If you say well, experience is real but you haven't proven existence, by what criteria other than what I have given would you prove it? Gravity isn't touchable, tasteable, smelly or anything else but we know it is there because we have proven it through experimentation and observation. If you are saying that all the sensory methods available to us aren't proof of reality, then what is?
I haven't proven it? By what measure? Have you got a different sensory method that provides proof to back your statement?
So please sir, provide objective, testable evidence that a god exists. Or come up with some other criteria of testing that says
that the universe doesn't exist. Trust me, you close your eyes and walk through the forest, you will hit a tree.
stromboli, how do you even know that your hands actually exist? By looking at them? By feeling them?
If you were just a brain, nothing else, no body, no eyes, no hands, no legs, nothing but a brain. And someone had connected a bunch of wires to your brain that were hooked up to a computer. And the computer was programmed to send electrical signals down the neural passageways and synapses in your brain that mimicked the exact same electrical signals that are being passed down your neural passageways right this second from your sensory organs, what would you see?
In reality, you would be a bodiless brain, with no hands, hooked up to a computer with wires. But what you would be experiencing because of the electrical signals the computer was sending to your brain, was a rich vibrant reality. One in which you could look down and see your hands. And grab an apple and and feel it in your hands, and bite it and taste its sweetness. You would BELIEVE you were in a material objective reality, but you would be entirely WRONG about that.
If the computer was programmed to produce a character in your virtual reality to walk up to you and ask, "Prove that we are existing in a material objective reality!" What would your argument be? Would it be:
QuoteWe perceive the universe experientially. We do it though every sense, every expanded sense, every technology that stretches our senses. Sorry, but a hallucination might seem real but it is still not provable in the same sense as what we perceive as reality. We have a commonality of understanding across centuries of experience, technology, and so forth.
If a Paleontologist finds a skull of a formerly unknown animal, this is not a theoretical or fictional event, but a measurable event in objective terms. I has not been predicted, theorized or fantasized. It does not meet any criteria but that of being objectively real in space/time.
So it everything in our universe- all the laws of mathematics and science, all the elements, the physical state of matter, the hardness of concrete and so on, all together are a vast body of objective proof that the universe exists in a real way.
Can you see that none of what you said is proof or evidence that you exist in a material objective universe? Everything you described could be simulated by a computer. Everything. And because of this, Materialism is no more probable than the Simulated Universe hypothesis or any other viable theory.
If a character in Skyrim closes his eyes and walks through a forest, trust me, he will hit a tree. But this is not proof that he exists in an objective material reality.
Here's the problem. Any proof we can offer, you will see as invalid because there is an off chance that reality isn't real. Any evidence we show you would be therefor useless to you. You seem to wish us to prove the existance of the actual world by finding a spot 'outside' of it and from there prove it exists because only that way you can get a 'actual proof' of that reality. But to go outside reality to prove reality is just something that isn't possible if all there is, is actual, tangeable and materialist reality.
This is not a new thought in philosophy. What is actualy reality? Am I truly typing on a laptop?
OR
Am I dreaming that I'm typing on a laptop? Am I hallucinating this? Am I sure of anything but my own existance (i think therefore I am)? Am I just a computerprogram? ...
But here's the thing. To see the universe as a measurable and material place is the only position backed up by any kind of evidence. And it's a position of not claiming anything you can't proof to be true within that framework.
The immaterialist universe assumption is not equally valid because there is not even proof for it within it's own framework. And it's not the only other option out there. You've named a few, for all I know I'm a mind being tested on by aliens to see if I accept reality. For all I care I'm scientist who'se created a matrix and is now doing a test-run and has created something we can accept as a lifetime of reality but I'll wake up as the real me only a second older. Perhaps we are all reborn with our souls in another plain of existance. Perhaps the there is only a mind-hive of God.
There is no telling what you may think viable if you abbandon reason and the limited proof we have. And none of the above are philosophically speaking impossible. They just do not add to a workeable and useable understanding of reality nor are they in any way likely. Definitely not more than the one stance we have this 'limited' proof for.
Agnostisim, Deism, Whatever OP is on about-ism.
It all comes down to solipsism.
Maybe I'm actually fucking 20 hot women instead of typing this. WHO KNOWS>?>>##>$E$>>??????!!!!1!!
I mean RIGHTY?!!?!!?!1!
Good luck with your immensely usefull worldview.
I'm off spending imaginary money now.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 11:29:04 PM
I do not doubt your capacity for cognitive dissonance and selective memory.
Coming from someone who can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption that is rich. You're either a fucking moron or a troll.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 12, 2014, 04:37:04 AM
Here's the problem. Any proof we can offer, you will see as invalid because there is an off chance that reality isn't real. Any evidence we show you would be therefor useless to you. You seem to wish us to prove the existance of the actual world by finding a spot 'outside' of it and from there prove it exists because only that way you can get a 'actual proof' of that reality. But to go outside reality to prove reality is just something that isn't possible if all there is, is actual, tangeable and materialist reality.
This is not a new thought in philosophy. What is actualy reality? Am I truly typing on a laptop?
OR
Am I dreaming that I'm typing on a laptop? Am I hallucinating this? Am I sure of anything but my own existance (i think therefore I am)? Am I just a computerprogram? ...
But here's the thing. To see the universe as a measurable and material place is the only position backed up by any kind of evidence. And it's a position of not claiming anything you can't proof to be true within that framework.
The immaterialist universe assumption is not equally valid because there is not even proof for it within it's own framework. And it's not the only other option out there. You've named a few, for all I know I'm a mind being tested on by aliens to see if I accept reality. For all I care I'm scientist who'se created a matrix and is now doing a test-run and has created something we can accept as a lifetime of reality but I'll wake up as the real me only a second older. Perhaps we are all reborn with our souls in another plain of existance. Perhaps the there is only a mind-hive of God.
There is no telling what you may think viable if you abbandon reason and the limited proof we have. And none of the above are philosophically speaking impossible. They just do not add to a workeable and useable understanding of reality nor are they in any way likely. Definitely not more than the one stance we have this 'limited' proof for.
Yep, it doesn't matter what you say. This is the argument that reality isn't real crap.
It doesn't matter what you argue or how you say it, the conversation will always end up in "well how do YOU know that what you see / hear is real??"
Truly a wasteful conversation.
No doubt the pot is much better than it was 20 years ago.....the arguments it tends to produce....not so much.
Can we fire up the old infinite improbability drive and get the op back to his shack with the lord?
Im sure he missis him....
At least that is what my mind thinks
And as I said before, every method of quantifying and measuring reality you merely say is invalid. Fair enough. Show us a way to measure reality that isn't invalid.
You've argued and rejected arguments but you still haven't shown anything like proof to back your statements.
Perhaps when one fails in the real world they fancy the imaginative as a hopeful second chance.
Did the Toothfairanism debate start yet? I'm in on that! :lol:
Another question: how can you prove that god exists if you can't define, identify or describe him?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 12, 2014, 04:37:04 AM
But here's the thing. To see the universe as a measurable and material place is the only position backed up by any kind of evidence. And it's a position of not claiming anything you can't proof to be true within that framework.
What is that evidence exactly?? If you are claiming that Materialism is true, and also admitting that proof is an impossibility, what are you actually saying? It sounds like you are saying that you are claiming something to be true even though you can't prove it to be true.
Quote
And none of the above are philosophically speaking impossible. They just do not add to a workeable and useable understanding of reality nor are they in any way likely. Definitely not more than the one stance we have this 'limited' proof for.
In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available. What is this "limited proof" you speak of?
As a skeptic I am asking for at least some kind of attempt at justification. Even "limited proof" would be better than nothing at all....
Go play in traffic and see if the world is material or not! :wall: Solitary
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 12, 2014, 06:15:55 AM
Coming from someone who can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption that is rich. You're either a fucking moron or a troll.
Kind sir,
You have just called me a "fucking moron or a troll" on the grounds that I "can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption." Now then, following your logic, if it turns out that you are in fact the one who has gotten the two mixed up, would that then in all fairness make you the "fucking moron or a troll"?
A conclusion is something one arrives at after having discovered evidence that a given claim is true. For instance: That time slows down at very high velocities is a conclusion, because we have observed clocks tick more slowly when in planes traveling at several times the speed of sound compared to clocks that are stationary. There exists evidence, and therefore we have a conclusion.
An assumption is something that is not based on evidence but is merely "assumed" without evidence. It is something simply "taken for granted". For instance: That we live in a Geocentric Universe was an assumption that was held by the world's scientists for over 2000 years. It was simply "taken for granted", though still entirely accepted as Truth by the Scientific Community. It was an assumption.
There is no scientific experiment that "concluded" that Materialism is True. It doesn't exist. There is no "proof" which has lead us to "conclude" that Materialism is true. It is quite simply, an assumption. Materialism is assumed to be the case, taken for granted as true, without proof, by the Scientific Community, and you.
You seem to argue that Materialism is a "conclusion", and if this indeed so, I am simply asking for the experiment, the evidence, the proof, that has lead to this "conclusion."
If you should discover that there is no evidence, no proof, no scientific experiment that has lead us to "conclude" that materialism, is true... It would then seem logical to admit the obvious, that Materialism is simply an assumption.
And I will accept your apology at that time for calling me names on a false accusation. An accusation you are ironically guilty of after closer examination.
Quote from: wolf39us on April 12, 2014, 07:28:25 AM
Yep, it doesn't matter what you say. This is the argument that reality isn't real crap.
It doesn't matter what you argue or how you say it, the conversation will always end up in "well how do YOU know that what you see / hear is real??"
Truly a wasteful conversation.
I am not arguing whether or not what you see/hear is "real". Of course it is. I am asking that the positive claim that we exist in a Material Objective Reality be backed with some hard evidence rather than just taking your word for it.
"every body else believes it" and "nobody else questions it" are not valid arguments. I would at the very least like to hear one of you admit that your world view rests upon an unsupported assumption. But i'd much rather like to hear one of you actually present some proof.
I have definitive proof that god doesn't exist, but I won't show you.
Quote from: Solitary on April 12, 2014, 11:48:27 PM
Go play in traffic and see if the world is material or not! :wall: Solitary
If a character in GTA5 takes your advise and goes and plays in traffic he will get hit by a car. This must prove that he exists in a Material Objective Universe right?
If you are brain in a jar hooked up to computer that is simulating a 'physical' universe, and you run out in traffic, you will get hit by a car. Therefore, you were existing in a Material Objective Universe right?
If I am having a dream and I run out in traffic I will get hit by a car, therefore, I was existing in a Material Objective Universe right?
Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?
Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?
Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?
If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....
If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:22:34 AM
Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?
Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?
Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?
If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....
If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.
No no no and no, because you have not provided anything that in fact disproves it. You reject it out of hand without providing any proof of an alternative explanation. We can only measure reality by what methods we have for testing it. Regardless of what argument you claim to have, without providing another method of testing you cannot claim materialism or anything else is false. And my last question: how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define?
You have not proven that materialism is an unsupported unjustified assumption. You have not rendered every available means that we have for testing as moot, because you have not provided any alternative. Every means we have for testing, whether it be evidence of objective reality or Quantum Mechanics, is the only way we can define reality and what is real, experientially or otherwise.
Just because you believe we are all brains in a vat, you have at no point proved that, nor disproved any stance made by us. You have said that hallucinations and dreams are the same as what we perceive as reality, but that is false. We know the difference comparatively between dreams, hallucinations, and what we perceive and agree upon as real. I have had hallucinations and dreams. I know that they are not reality. People who can't tell the difference are people who are mentally ill by definition.
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2014, 01:39:26 AM
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.
The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.
tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Beautifully stated. I am in awe. :clap:
And again my question: how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define? A god by definition has to be supernatural, having the abilities that are beyond any conceivable or reproducible by observers. But that also puts it outside the realm of possible understanding, because we have no way of verifying if it is real or not.
Quote from: stromboli on April 13, 2014, 12:40:05 AM
No no no and no, because you have not provided anything that in fact disproves it. You reject it out of hand without providing any proof of an alternative explanation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
There ya go. Now what? :vegetasmiley:
Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that
Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in.
Conclusively. You have not provided any evidence for your positive claim beyond bare assumption, but you have invited me to provide evidence that disproves your claim. So I have provided evidence that contradicts your assumption's validity.
From the abstract of the Peer Reviewed Paper:
"No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice."
The results of quantum eraser experiments conclusively show that the assumption of Materialism is false. I believe I have met your criteria, have I not?
QuoteAnd my last question: how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define?
I believe I have done this several different times now in this thread, but i will provide my definition once more:
god noun \gad also god\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.
You know that you are conscious. Consciousness is non-physical and yet you have gained this knowledge. You know that you have experience. Experience is non-physical and yet you can know this. God as I define it is the source and sum of all consciousness, and is therefore knowable in the exact same way.
QuoteYou have not proven that materialism is an unsupported unjustified assumption. You have not rendered every available means that we have for testing as moot, because you have not provided any alternative. Every means we have for testing, whether it be evidence of objective reality or Quantum Mechanics, is the only way we can define reality and what is real, experientially or otherwise.
A character in a Skyrim could do experiments to discover whether or not he exists in a Material Objective Universe. If he devised a device that let him look far into the distance, and noticed that trees only seemed to pop into existence when we walked close enough to observe them, he would have good reason to believe that he does not exist in a Material Objective Reality. In a Material Universe, trees don't care if there is an observer present or not, they don't pop into existence depending on the actions of an observer. If he somehow noticed that his reality was observer/consciousness dependent and observer/consciousness relative vs observer/consciousness independent, and if he could devise an experiment that proved this, he will have effectively disproved the assumption that the reality he exists in is an Objective Material Universe.
I have provided peer reviewed evidence that disproves your positive claim, whereas you have provided nothing but Apologetics.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 02:35:35 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
There ya go. Now what? :vegetasmiley:
Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in. Conclusively.
I have a strong suspicion that you haven't even read that paper.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2014, 01:39:26 AM
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.
Well I do not disagree with this much... Go on....
Quote
I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.
I do disagree here.
Any being, no matter how intelligent and advanced, that claims to be God is obviously not "God" as I have defined it. God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.
Any creature that appears outside of me and claims to be god has already demonstrated that it is not.
QuoteIt sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.
Mythological gods that you think of are indeed simplistic, but the Brahman and the Atman as one, described in the extremely ancient texts of Eastern Traditions is not so simplistic as Zues and yahweh. Several different ancient traditions have held that the perceptions of the senses are illusion, and that the truth is the changeless self within, in which all perceptions appear.
You look at the perceptions and call them real. You view the passing show that appears within your consciousness and point to it saying, "look out there, all of that is real" and yet you ignore the fact that you have never been anywhere else but
here, and you have never been any time else but
now, and you have never experienced anything else but
you.
The only thing that exists is you. And the only thing that exists is God. The experiencer of experiences. Consciousness. Mind.
You point to the perceptions that appear within your consciousness, and claim that they are real but you the one experiencing them are not. But when pressed, you have no proof to back up such claim, because proof of such a claim is impossible on account of the nature of reality. Proof does not exist for that which is not true. But you have every right to go on believing whatever it is you wish, whatever gives you comfort.
QuoteThen you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"
If materialism were true, and I claimed that the material objective universe was God, that would be ridiculous. I should just call the objective material universe the objective material universe.
But because materialism is not true, to say that all is God is similar to saying "When I have a dream, the entire world I dream is me." Everything that I experience in a dream, no matter how physical or material it seems, or how many other people exist in the dream that I interact with, the entire thing is really just one consciousness interacting with itself. Consciousness at play.
Similarly, I say that "all is in and part of god", there is nothing else. Just as the rock I kick in a dream is part of me, so are we all parts of God.
We are Consciousness, tiny pieces of God. Consciousness creates realities. When you fall asleep, you create realities and play in them. When you are in a sensory depravation chamber, your consciousness starts to hallucinate and create realities to experience. It is the very nature of reality, the nature of God, the nature of us, we are it.
QuoteThe human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.
Rob Bryanton states himself that the Seventh Dimension he describes is indistinguishable to what human being should consider to be God, and I totally 100% agree with him. The seventh dimension is God. It is all of us and everything we have ever will ever and could ever experience all at once.
God.But he goes further, and I agree with him. Though the seventh dimension is God as far as we should ever care, I believe the true God is the Tenth Dimension, which is not just everything that possible could ever have anything to do with us, but also everything that possibly could ever happen even that has absolutely nothing to do with us and our entire universe altogether, all happening at once and being experienced simultaneously as one thing.
God.Our universe seems Material, but fundamentally it is produced by consciousness. And i believe the same is true for all existence and all being and all experience, at the core is consciousness. And all conceivable existence, and even unconceivable existence and all possibilities and even unpossibilites, all crunched together as one large consciousness system... is God. And we are parts of it, not seperate from it, but eternal connected and one with it
QuoteEven if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it.
Sure, I'm totally cool with that. It's semantics bro. You call it programmer, I'll call it God. Whatever. Words are words, if you don't like a certain word because it has a certain connotation that brings back bad memories for you and leaves a nasty taste in your mouth then fine, throw it out! Don't use the word God, use programmer instead. What matters is not the label but that the conclusion is rational consistent with the actual case of the matter.
So go ahead, replace the word "god" every time I have used it throughout this entire thread and replace it with the word "programmer". It makes no difference to me.
Quotetl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Plausible deniability. To a truly skeptical individual, no body could ever prove anything, there is only one thing that is undeniably true for us all and none of us can doubt and that is the statement "I exist." But this statement alone, when followed all the way, points to the existence of "the programmer".
You keep using the word "mythical god", and I'm sure you realize that I am not arguing for any "mythical god" such as yahweh or Zeus. We both agree that "mythical gods" are feeble attempts at approximation made by ignorant ancient people and are patently false.
The nature of reality is not consistant with Materialism. But it is consistent with a "simulator" or a "programmer". So there we have it folks. Now if it makes you feel all warm in fuzzy inside you can say at the end, "Now we can reasonably conclude that there is no god." :syda:
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2014, 02:50:49 AM
I have a strong suspicion that you haven't even read that paper.
The paper is only 7 pages long, yes I have read it but it is obviously extremely technical, especially towards the end, and is not written for the laymen. I am however very familiar with how the quantum eraser experiments work and what their conclusions are and why this is important.
The conclusion of this Paper and this experiment is that Materialism is false. (and this is not the only one)
Quote from: Casparov on April 12, 2014, 11:45:20 PM
What is that evidence exactly?? If you are claiming that Materialism is true, and also admitting that proof is an impossibility, what are you actually saying? It sounds like you are saying that you are claiming something to be true even though you can't prove it to be true.
In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available. What is this "limited proof" you speak of?
As a skeptic I am asking for at least some kind of attempt at justification. Even "limited proof" would be better than nothing at all....
Do not misunderstand me. That is not proof for the existance of a material universe, nor was it an attempt to provide any. It is merely a way to show you that your question is ultimately doomed to go unanswered by your standard of proof IF a material universe is all there is. You are expecting a grade of certainty that may not be deliverable in any instance.
Allow me to make an analogy to get my point across. I've had a conversation with a muslim co-student at my college once. And she didn't believe in evolution theory. When I told her it was backed up by many things and many proofs. She asked me what those were. The first thing that popped in my head was the fossil-record. Now unlike the answer I was expecting from her (those were monkeys or apes), she said something akin to "But is it not possible that Allah put them there to test our faith?"
Well it is a possibility, an unlikely one and an unfounded one, but it is a possibility. We observe a concrete and consistent universe, though admittedly one with many mysteries yet undiscovered. And the theories we develop to make succesfull predictions seem to work. But yes, it always possible that there is some higher, more intricate and more complex solution. Ultimate proof in this way is impossible.But without evidence for the added and unnecesary notion, aka Allah (in this case), it is better to assume the model that does not have an unfounded, untestable and unprovable 'mind' on top of it.
All viable evidence that science has ever produced works within the framework of reality being real but it can not ultimately prove that framework (hence 'limited proof'). Not if you can always say 'but isn't it possible that there is something else entirely?' Because you can always say that. Evolution is pretty much fact at this point, but you still get people who say "but what if it is just a ploy by an almighty creator"? Same for reality, which in all honesty seems to us to be a material reality. Even if it is not actually a material reality, it does it's best to look like one to us. Perfectly so, actually. So, in that case, it seems wiser to not believe the that the fossils were put there with alterior motives, or that evolution is guided or hurricanes and tsunami's are a punishment from god or ... If you have the working model that is perfect without a supernatural entity on top of it, it is simply not beneficial to put one on there.
Also, you seem to display the idea that an immaterial universe is not an assumption but rather the default-position. (If you agree that the immaterial universe would be an assumption, than sorry for misunderstanding your drift. But realize, for future discussions, that in this one it seemed as such. At least to me it did, and I think to others too.) If the material universe is an assumption, than so is the immaterial one. This is not kin to the argument of atheïsm. To an atheïst a supernatural and ultimately unproven, unmeasured and unobserved claim is made, and the atheïst is not convinced by it. With the atheïst having no burden of proof because he is not asserting a claim. Unlike in the theïsm/atheïsm debate, the existance of a God is purely hypothetical. But the fact that there is some form of reality: material, immaterial, virtual, hive-mind-based, personal-mind-that-deceives-itself-based, ... is not a pure hypothetical.
Now you are right that if I were to assert that a
material universe were true, the burden of proof would be on me. I might point to the fact that it's the only world-view with any testable and consistent proof within it's own framework (hence the evidence you inquired after in the quote), but you need not be convinced by that. No more than that muslim girl had to be convinced when I claimed that evolution was true by pointing to the fossil-record.
But the moment you make a claim about reality being '
immaterial' the burden of proof is on you. And it is an untestable, unproveable hypothesis without even any consistent proof within it's own framework. An hypothesis that, in the particular view that you seem to uphold, seems to manifest itself as if it is a material universe, but it actually being a sort of con our god-hive-mind pulls on us. You said yourself to someone else in this topic (I think stromboli) that a virtual universe would in all effect seem like a material one to us and work like one. So you see, in essence, all you are doing is putting the deity on top of the working model.
I really have no problem with the "lets toss this out and think about it" scenario of alternate realities or the god is all and all is god. The questions that hamper my poor mind is why the grandness of the "illusions". If, for instance, I am simply alone, and everything else is mere "imaginative", why the complexity? Does not this violate some basic concept of economy? Why is all this necessary when "life" could as easily be enjoyable as a single cell?
If indeed, you do not exist but for my poor mind, the idea and thoughts my mind has imagined has gone considerably further than the desires of tits and ass, why do I give a fuck about quantum and tube worms living at the ocean bottom? Why would I care about combustion engines and Pythagorus, or even comma's and smilies? It is rather absurd to take the baseness that I find appealing, tits and ass, and spend this incredible amount of energy on shit I don't give a fuck about when, especially, the point of this rant is I am not getting the fucking that my baseness desires which calls into question why the fuck can't my own fucking imagination give me what the fuck I want instead of shit I don't give a fuck about? The programmer is a fucking FUCK.
Or we could take a much simpler look at things and suggest they are real indeed because everything suggests it is, and nothing suggests it is not. And I might add, if one admits that the concept of gods are humanities greatest inventions, the gods would pale to the arrogance to suggest that ones consciousness is indeed the macrocosm of all, and especially when the very consciousness cannot give its own self what it wants.
Quote from: aitm on April 13, 2014, 05:22:14 AM
I really have no problem with the "lets toss this out and think about it" scenario of alternate realities or the god is all and all is god. The questions that hamper my poor mind is why the grandness of the "illusions". If, for instance, I am simply alone, and everything else is mere "imaginative", why the complexity? Does not this violate some basic concept of economy? Why is all this necessary when "life" could as easily be enjoyable as a single cell?
This kind of argument has been around as long as I can remember. A college sophomore takes his first class in philosophy and immediately feels qualified to wear a toga and walk about the campus spouting bizarre crap that strikes him as deeply profound. Some never grow out of it and become street preachers.
Quote from: aitm on April 13, 2014, 05:22:14 AM
If indeed, you do not exist but for my poor mind, the idea and thoughts my mind has imagined has gone considerably further than the desires of tits and ass, why do I give a fuck about quantum and tube worms living at the ocean bottom? Why would I care about combustion engines and Pythagorus, or even comma's and smilies?
Can you not see that you may have deceived yourself?
Quote from: aitm on April 13, 2014, 05:22:14 AM
Or we could take a much simpler look at things and suggest they are real indeed because everything suggests it is, and nothing suggests it is not. And I might add, if one admits that the concept of gods are humanities greatest inventions, the gods would pale to the arrogance to suggest that ones consciousness is indeed the macrocosm of all, and especially when the very consciousness cannot give its own self what it wants.
Only a fool would attempt such a simple argument when it is obvious to the advanced student of philosophy that things are never what they seem. Nothing is all that exists.
Added: This thread is becoming a bore. We need to get Jutter over here asking some of prize winning indecipherable questions. Now there's a real philosopher. No answers intended to be given. Just seemingly profound questions to stir our addled brains, and no attempt at debate. Jutter merely plants a seed, and our minds blossom into pure thought unencumbered by reality. Now that's what I call smokin' philosophy.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:14:00 AM
I am not arguing whether or not what you see/hear is "real". Of course it is. I am asking that the positive claim that we exist in a Material Objective Reality be backed with some hard evidence rather than just taking your word for it.
"every body else believes it" and "nobody else questions it" are not valid arguments. I would at the very least like to hear one of you admit that your world view rests upon an unsupported assumption. But i'd much rather like to hear one of you actually present some proof.
Okay Casaprov let's make this really easy because this conversation is ridiculous.
***Ahem...***
1) I make no claim that there exists only a material world. I make no claim that an immaterial world DOESN'T exist.
2) I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God. I make no claim that God does NOT exist.
Quote from: God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.
Positive Claim, where is your evidence?
Quote from: But because materialism is not true, to say that all is God is similar to saying "When I have a dream, the entire world I dream is me."
Positive Claim, where is your evidence?
Quote from: Plausible deniability. To a truly skeptical individual, no body could ever prove anything,
Yet you are convinced of an immaterial God? Quite the skeptic you are.
Quote from: The reason I have arrived at the conclusion that God exists is because the alternative is not convincing. The alternative, of course, being that we exist in an objective material universe. In which case the God Hypothesis would be entirely unnecessary.
It seems to me that you are starting with the assumption of God and working your way backwards. You assume God because you're not convinced of a material world.
Quote from: I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do.
Wouldn't even bother. Firstly I make no assumption this is the case and secondly I have no reason to believe that ANYTHING anyone says will be convincing to you. You are,
in my opinion, unreasonable by definition.
Is English your second language? The link doesn't say what you think it said. It is a description of a standard double slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics:
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in midâ€'flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.
And has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality, god or anything else.
And it is also old, dated about 1999.
And then you dive into metaphysical Brahman/ Buddhist concepts. Dude, you have not proven your point in any way, period.
Proof is arrived at by a consistent, repeatable methodology that comes to the same conclusion every time. You can call that materialism, but it is a simple fact. It is also science. You can also explain god in any words you choose, but there is a conundrum; as I said earlier, god by definition is supernatural and outside of human understanding. At the end of the day, no matter what you define, describe, or imagine, it will be in human terms and will be speculation- BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AM
Any being, no matter how intelligent and advanced, that claims to be God is obviously not "God" as I have defined it. God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.
Any creature that appears outside of me and claims to be god has already demonstrated that it is not.
(http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1374/56/1374560055054.jpg)
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AM[bullshit]Mythological gods that you think of are indeed simplistic, but the Brahman and the Atman as one, described in the extremely ancient texts of Eastern Traditions is not so simplistic as Zues and yahweh. Several different ancient traditions have held that the perceptions of the senses are illusion, and that the truth is the changeless self within, in which all perceptions appear.
You look at the perceptions and call them real. You view the passing show that appears within your consciousness and point to it saying, "look out there, all of that is real" and yet you ignore the fact that you have never been anywhere else but here, and you have never been any time else but now, and you have never experienced anything else but you.
The only thing that exists is you. And the only thing that exists is God. The experiencer of experiences. Consciousness. Mind.
You point to the perceptions that appear within your consciousness, and claim that they are real but you the one experiencing them are not. But when pressed, you have no proof to back up such claim, because proof of such a claim is impossible on account of the nature of reality. Proof does not exist for that which is not true. But you have every right to go on believing whatever it is you wish, whatever gives you comfort.[/bullshit]
I've seen this sort of "speaking without saying anything" too many times to have any interest in digesting it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AMIf materialism were true
I don't really give one singular fuck if it's true or not. My point is that you have nothing better.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AMRob Bryanton states himself that the Seventh Dimension he describes is indistinguishable to what human being should consider to be God, and I totally 100% agree with him. The seventh dimension is God. It is all of us and everything we have ever will ever and could ever experience all at once. God.
But he goes further, and I agree with him. Though the seventh dimension is God as far as we should ever care, I believe the true God is the Tenth Dimension, which is not just everything that possible could ever have anything to do with us, but also everything that possibly could ever happen even that has absolutely nothing to do with us and our entire universe altogether, all happening at once and being experienced simultaneously as one thing. God.
The Rob Bryanton example was used as an easily-digestible illustration of scale. Rob Bryanton is not describing an accepted scientific theory. The instant you try to use it as such, you are straying into the realm of bullshit.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AM[bullshit]Our universe seems Material, but fundamentally it is produced by consciousness. And i believe the same is true for all existence and all being and all experience, at the core is consciousness. And all conceivable existence, and even unconceivable existence and all possibilities and even unpossibilites, all crunched together as one large consciousness system... is God. And we are parts of it, not seperate from it, but eternal connected and one with it[/bullshit]
Blah blah fuckitty blah.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AMSure, I'm totally cool with that. It's semantics bro. You call it programmer, I'll call it God
You missed the entire point if you think it's just semantics. Such a being would no more be God than it would be Dracula. You are demonstrating perfectly the exact reason why the word "god" needs to be purged from that discussion: The term has emotional attachments that leads people to bullshit conclusions that are not supported by science, nor have anything to do with the scientific body of knowledge.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AMYou keep using the word "mythical god", and I'm sure you realize that I am not arguing for any "mythical god" such as yahweh or Zeus. We both agree that "mythical gods" are feeble attempts at approximation made by ignorant ancient people and are patently false.
You are, though. Just because it's the New Age Spiritualism variety doesn't make your god any less mythical. You only have this concept thanks to earlier stories.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 03:24:40 AMThe nature of reality is not consistant with Materialism.
Even if it isn't, that doesn't automatically make it consistent with your worldview. This is the exact same mistake the anti-evolution folks make, which is thinking that "disproving" one idea instantly elevates your own above all the other possibilities. Your arrogance in thinking so, like theirs, is astounding; though I have seen it far too many times for it to be infuriating anymore.
Hi, newbie here. Nice to meet you all.
For my first post I'll take a shot at the major problems with Casparov's line of reasoning.
The first major problem is his repeated claim that “the Material Objective Universe is a positive claimâ€
It is NOT a positive claim, it is a shared experience. If we both see a tree, touch the tree, smell the tree, sit on the tree and so on… we share the experience of the tree. Any claim that the tree is an illusion is therefore the positive claim and is what needs to be proven. Casporov is attempting to shift the burden of proof to avoid the sticky problem of proving his claim that there are more “things†than we can observe. One of those things being the amorphous “God†he wishes to prove the existence of. It seems to me that many of his detractors failed to catch his switch and accepted a burden of proof problem that was never theirs.
The second major problem is that he is asking for scientific proof to an unscientific question. In other words he is violating the principal of falsifiability. Solipsism (questioning reality) is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (as there is no way to falsify the concept)
Since solopsism deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment it follows that demanding scientific proof of a purely philosophical question is invalid. He is conflating philosophy with science.
Casparov, you can believe anything you want, but you cannot claim that your belief is supported in anyway by facts, evidence or logic.
Lol. Welcome to the party. good first post.
What's the name of that god and his attributes anyway? Only one god ? Why not millions ?
Welcome berati. Your first post is spot on.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:08:59 AM
Kind sir,
You have just called me a "fucking moron or a troll" on the grounds that I "can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption." Now then, following your logic, if it turns out that you are in fact the one who has gotten the two mixed up, would that then in all fairness make you the "fucking moron or a troll"?
A conclusion is something one arrives at after having discovered evidence that a given claim is true. For instance: That time slows down at very high velocities is a conclusion, because we have observed clocks tick more slowly when in planes traveling at several times the speed of sound compared to clocks that are stationary. There exists evidence, and therefore we have a conclusion.
An assumption is something that is not based on evidence but is merely "assumed" without evidence. It is something simply "taken for granted". For instance: That we live in a Geocentric Universe was an assumption that was held by the world's scientists for over 2000 years. It was simply "taken for granted", though still entirely accepted as Truth by the Scientific Community. It was an assumption.
There is no scientific experiment that "concluded" that Materialism is True. It doesn't exist. There is no "proof" which has lead us to "conclude" that Materialism is true. It is quite simply, an assumption. Materialism is assumed to be the case, taken for granted as true, without proof, by the Scientific Community, and you.
You seem to argue that Materialism is a "conclusion", and if this indeed so, I am simply asking for the experiment, the evidence, the proof, that has lead to this "conclusion."
If you should discover that there is no evidence, no proof, no scientific experiment that has lead us to "conclude" that materialism, is true... It would then seem logical to admit the obvious, that Materialism is simply an assumption.
And I will accept your apology at that time for calling me names on a false accusation. An accusation you are ironically guilty of after closer examination.
No one disprove the existence of the luminiferous aether either, yet no one in science believes in it, why? When it was postulated in the 19th century, it was in line that everything we knew that was made up of waves had to move in a medium. Light was made up of waves accoding to the Maxwell's equations, therefore it had to move in a medium, hence the luminiferous aether. But tests after tests, no one could measure any effect of this wonderful luminiferous aether. So it had to be abandoned. It was deemed superfluous.
Go back 500 years, just when the scientific method was being adopted throughout Europe. In those days, people believed not only in gods but also in demons, angels, goblins, witches, sorcerers, faieries, lepechrauns, and a whole slew of creatures that inhabited the ''other world'', a.k.a the spiritual/immaterial world. Well, after 500 years of the scientific method in place, no evidence has ever come up to support the existence of this immaterial world. So how long do we need to wait before we can say, the immaterial doesn't exist? You want to claim that it exists then the burden is on YOU to prove your case. So far, lots of big words from you but not a shred of evidence.
I think at this point we've reached the "beating a dead horse" stage. Soon as he got into the metaphysical Brahmin/god within, it was pretty much over, if not before that.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:19:28 AM
If a character in GTA5 takes your advise and goes and plays in traffic he will get hit by a car. This must prove that he exists in a Material Objective Universe right?
If you are brain in a jar hooked up to computer that is simulating a 'physical' universe, and you run out in traffic, you will get hit by a car. Therefore, you were existing in a Material Objective Universe right?
If I am having a dream and I run out in traffic I will get hit by a car, therefore, I was existing in a Material Objective Universe right?
I'm confused at what you consider a material universe. For all intents and purposed the characters in GTA5 do exist in a material universe. Cause and effect. We could easily all be in a computer simulation as well, but that would not change a single thing. I'm confused as to why you think it would. Nothing in "our reality" be any different. Our definitions would only exist within this reality. A chair would still be a chair, just as a chair in GTA5 is a chair in that universe. Of course, if we are in fact in a simulation we are in an almost infinitely superior one.
Now, let's backtrack, you dismiss a material universe, which all evidence supports, and cling to the completely unsupported idea that a being/force/mind lives within the universe. What supports materialism? Absolutely everything. Everything we have ever found is material. We have never found anything immaterial. And no, GTA5 is not evidence of something immaterial. GTA5 is demonstrably material as well. The codes exist. What they transcribe exist. It exists just as much as this forum you are currently writing in.
(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then)
Casparov how often do you crap and fart? :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 13, 2014, 02:34:37 PM
(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then)
He strikes me as the type who got a bit of egg on the face in another discussion group somewhere. He realized that what he was presenting as evidence wasn't evidence, and then tried the, "Well you prove it's not true," routine and was laughed out of the place.
Now armed with a little bit of dangerous understanding, and some crazy bullshit about things not existing, he's trying to regain some stature by challenging the forum to prove reality exists... or something. Now, he knows about shitty evidence, because that's where he found himself so confounded before. From what he's learned, he assumes that the "Your evidence is shit" strategy is an unbeatable tactic.
That's why he hasn't followed up with evidence of his own or really taken the discussion anyplace at all. He's comfortable in a place where he just sits there and says, "You can't prove it." And it's taken a zillion posts to not get anywhere.
Quote(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then)
I read the whole thread and it seems to me that he is sincere in his belief. But it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position) in order to allow himself the freedom to follow this cherished belief. Without the desire for the outcome he seeks, I don't think he would have made an error he seems capable of understanding.
Quote from: Berati on April 13, 2014, 06:20:12 PM
it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position)
Very possibly. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a troll, but certainly obsessed with a bizarre argument about materialism. He could be trolling, but that feeling is near the bottom of my guess list too. I think he feels he's got to get a concession on the reality thing, believing that will allow him to set up some slam dunk about the existence of God. Although, I don't actually see how such a concession would be relevant to that argument.
I would like to let him have it, just to see what he does
So from now on I'm just going to tell people I'm a Panentheist and watch their eyes glaze over. Could be fun.
I do that now as a Panotheust. They get all wired out, and when I tell them inevitably the creation is greater than the creator the get wiggy on me....its not much fun but it IS fun.
I don't get invited out much anyway so fuck it.
Quote from: stromboli on April 13, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
I don't get invited out much anyway so fuck it.
maybe you should try being less of an ass......jes saying...
What is panotheuism, I've seen you mention it a few times and I can't find info on it
Good luck. :biggrin:
Is it a joke?
:super:
Hello all, I am just checking in to let everyone know I have not given up and run away. I will address each reply individually soon but due to personal circumstance tonight it will have to wait.
Until very soon,
Casper The Friendliest Ghost in the Machine
He is alive!!!!!
Don't worry, I'm not terribly concerned whether you leave or stay.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 14, 2014, 01:20:56 AM
Don't worry, I'm not terribly concerned whether you leave or stay.
Yep, the whole world trembles on whether Casparov is made up of matter/energy or is a pure simulation, which btw that simulation would be made up of matter/energy, LOL.
Quote from: Casparov on April 12, 2014, 11:45:20 PM
In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available.
What other options?
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:22:34 AM
Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?
Nope.
Before this thread I didn't even know I was a materialist, so I'll take that as a win.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 13, 2014, 04:08:41 AM
Do not misunderstand me. That is not proof for the existance of a material universe, nor was it an attempt to provide any. It is merely a way to show you that your question is ultimately doomed to go unanswered by your standard of proof IF a material universe is all there is. You are expecting a grade of certainty that may not be deliverable in any instance.
I think I understand you now. You are saying that all I am doing is expecting proof that is not possible to be given. So your complaint is that I am asking you for proof when there isn't any.
I apologize for inconveniencing you, but with all do respects, that's not my problem. If you make a positive claim about reality, you are obligated to justify your claim with evidence. Or else admit that it is an unprovable assumption.
QuoteAllow me to make an analogy to get my point across. I've had a conversation with a muslim co-student at my college once. And she didn't believe in evolution theory. When I told her it was backed up by many things and many proofs. She asked me what those were. The first thing that popped in my head was the fossil-record. Now unlike the answer I was expecting from her (those were monkeys or apes), she said something akin to "But is it not possible that Allah put them there to test our faith?"
Well it is a possibility, an unlikely one and an unfounded one, but it is a possibility. We observe a concrete and consistent universe, though admittedly one with many mysteries yet undiscovered. And the theories we develop to make succesfull predictions seem to work. But yes, it always possible that there is some higher, more intricate and more complex solution. Ultimate proof in this way is impossible.But without evidence for the added and unnecesary notion, aka Allah (in this case), it is better to assume the model that does not have an unfounded, untestable and unprovable 'mind' on top of it.
I agree with what you are saying here. Just because there are other conceivable (even though very unlikely) theories that explain the same phenomena, that does not necessarily mean that the prevailing theory is false. I agree with this.
This is not what is occurring with respect to Materialism however. Materialism is not the most likely explanation. Nick Bostrom has argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated reality using pure statistical analysis.
It is not the case that there is a mountain of undeniable evidence that supports the assumption of Materialism and all other possible alternatives to Materialism are highly unlikely imaginative fantasies.... if that is how you perceive it than you are grandly mistaken and quite ignorant of the evidence and arguments that oppose Materialism.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578) ... is just one example of the growing mountain of direct evidence that contradicts the assumption of Materialism.
QuoteAll viable evidence that science has ever produced works within the framework of reality being real but it can not ultimately prove that framework (hence 'limited proof'). Not if you can always say 'but isn't it possible that there is something else entirely?' Because you can always say that. Evolution is pretty much fact at this point, but you still get people who say "but what if it is just a ploy by an almighty creator"? Same for reality, which in all honesty seems to us to be a material reality. Even if it is not actually a material reality, it does it's best to look like one to us. Perfectly so, actually. So, in that case, it seems wiser to not believe the that the fossils were put there with alterior motives, or that evolution is guided or hurricanes and tsunami's are a punishment from god or ... If you have the working model that is perfect without a supernatural entity on top of it, it is simply not beneficial to put one on there.
I am not denying that Materialism has been a working model for a very long time. That is not contested. What I am denying is that it is an unquestionable truth. (which quite a lot of Atheists seem to mistakenly believe as this thread should demonstrate)
Materialism is at base, a bare assumption. Philosophically it is unjustifiable. No man can produce a single piece of evidence to support it and certainly no proof. But beyond that, there exists direct evidence that disproves it as a theory about reality.
What I am arguing is not the same as arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster may have magically planted fossils in the ground vs there is an actual fossil record that demonstrates that creatures evolve physically over time.
What I am arguing is more like arguing that because when a ship arrives on the horizon from far out at sea, it gradually appears top to bottom vs appearing all at once, a sign that the earth is a sphere and not flat, even though flat earth theory was quite a good model and widely accepted for a very very long time.
QuoteAlso, you seem to display the idea that an immaterial universe is not an assumption but rather the default-position. (If you agree that the immaterial universe would be an assumption, than sorry for misunderstanding your drift. But realize, for future discussions, that in this one it seemed as such. At least to me it did, and I think to others too.) If the material universe is an assumption, than so is the immaterial one. This is not kin to the argument of atheïsm. To an atheïst a supernatural and ultimately unproven, unmeasured and unobserved claim is made, and the atheïst is not convinced by it. With the atheïst having no burden of proof because he is not asserting a claim. Unlike in the theïsm/atheïsm debate, the existance of a God is purely hypothetical. But the fact that there is some form of reality: material, immaterial, virtual, hive-mind-based, personal-mind-that-deceives-itself-based, ... is not a pure hypothetical.
Information is not material, and reality is ultimately information based, therefore reality is not material. This can be assumed yes, and it is also possible to be proven.
The Atheist has no burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of any particular God he disbelieves in. No Atheist is required to prove that God does not exist, this is true. But if a person is an Atheist because they are a Materialist and believes that we live in a material objective universe that does not require any God, then that Atheist is required to prove his positive claim about reality. Atheism is his negative position, Materialism is his positive position. He is required to justify his positive assertion.
QuoteNow you are right that if I were to assert that a material universe were true, the burden of proof would be on me. I might point to the fact that it's the only world-view with any testable and consistent proof within it's own framework (hence the evidence you inquired after in the quote), but you need not be convinced by that. No more than that muslim girl had to be convinced when I claimed that evolution was true by pointing to the fossil-record.
When Flat Earth Theory was proven false, was all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven with it? No. Absolutely and emphatically not. If you want to survey land you are farming you still use Flat Earth Theory. All of the proofs made within it's framework still holds because flat earth theory was an appoximation that is still accurate to this day for short distances.
When Einstein proved that Newton's Physics was ultimately false, did all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven? No. Just because we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory now doesn't mean that knocking billiards balls into other billiards balls doesn't cause a reaction that Newton proved within his framework. An apple still falls at the same rate, even though Newtonian Physics isn't ultimately correct. It was an approximation that is still accurate at certain sizes and speeds.
Similarly, Materialism is a assumption, a model that works to a degree because it is an approximation. The problem is when people believe it to be an unquestionable truth.
QuoteBut the moment you make a claim about reality being 'immaterial' the burden of proof is on you. And it is an untestable, unproveable hypothesis without even any consistent proof within it's own framework. An hypothesis that, in the particular view that you seem to uphold, seems to manifest itself as if it is a material universe, but it actually being a sort of con our god-hive-mind pulls on us. You said yourself to someone else in this topic (I think stromboli) that a virtual universe would in all effect seem like a material one to us and work like one. So you see, in essence, all you are doing is putting the deity on top of the working model.
You seem to be finally admitting that Materialism is an unjustified assumption, which i commend. Thank you. But you immediately and with the same breath have to throw in the "but you can't prove yours either!" :grin: And that's okay.
If it can be proven that information is the base of reality, then it will be proven that reality is ultimately immaterial, and the perceived materiality is an illusion produced by our experience of it, an approximation, a guess, an assumption. I believe that information as the base reality would prove that we live in an immaterial universe rather than just assume it as so.
The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality. I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality, and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.
Quote from: aitm on April 13, 2014, 05:22:14 AM
I really have no problem with the "lets toss this out and think about it" scenario of alternate realities or the god is all and all is god. The questions that hamper my poor mind is why the grandness of the "illusions". If, for instance, I am simply alone, and everything else is mere "imaginative", why the complexity? Does not this violate some basic concept of economy? Why is all this necessary when "life" could as easily be enjoyable as a single cell?
If indeed, you do not exist but for my poor mind, the idea and thoughts my mind has imagined has gone considerably further than the desires of tits and ass, why do I give a fuck about quantum and tube worms living at the ocean bottom? Why would I care about combustion engines and Pythagorus, or even comma's and smilies? It is rather absurd to take the baseness that I find appealing, tits and ass, and spend this incredible amount of energy on shit I don't give a fuck about when, especially, the point of this rant is I am not getting the fucking that my baseness desires which calls into question why the fuck can't my own fucking imagination give me what the fuck I want instead of shit I don't give a fuck about? The programmer is a fucking FUCK.
Or we could take a much simpler look at things and suggest they are real indeed because everything suggests it is, and nothing suggests it is not. And I might add, if one admits that the concept of gods are humanities greatest inventions, the gods would pale to the arrogance to suggest that ones consciousness is indeed the macrocosm of all, and especially when the very consciousness cannot give its own self what it wants.
:rotflmao:
Interesting post here but I think I get what you're asking. Essentially it's the "What is the purpose?" question.
Of course I can only guess at this, but according to my beliefs, the purpose of all of this, is evolution. As fundametally non-physical conscious being, it is the nature of what you are to create reality. That is what consciousness does. It seems that the purpose of this reality is to evolve into a consciousness that has more than the desire to create a reality full of tits and ass, as you put it.
If you truly wanted to create your tits and ass reality, you can! Nobody is stopping you from doing that. You dream every single night and it is up to you and your ability to direct and control your consciousness. If you could learn through discipline and hard work to focus your intent and increase your awareness to the point that you were aware and conscious during your dreams, you could by all means direct your intent to create whatever reality you want, every single night, and no body would ever be able to stop you. It is the nature of being a conscious being, it is your right.
The purpose of this reality it seems however is to have constraints and rules. It is not like a dream, it is more like a simulation of an objective consciousness independent reality in which we can't just intend things into existence. The purpose of this existence is to evolve your intent it seems. But that's just my theory of course.
If I am right, then it might be best to be an Atheist and fully buy into the objective material universe concept, as it should maximize the experience and point of this simulation.
So in short: The point is evolution. (but this is pure speculation mind you)
Quote from: SGOS on April 13, 2014, 06:32:09 AM
This thread is becoming a bore. We need to get Jutter over here asking some of prize winning indecipherable questions. Now there's a real philosopher. No answers intended to be given. Just seemingly profound questions to stir our addled brains, and no attempt at debate. Jutter merely plants a seed, and our minds blossom into pure thought unencumbered by reality. Now that's what I call smokin' philosophy.
Sounds like my kind of guy. Let's get Jutter in here!
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality.
Which because of a lack of evidence is known only to you.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality,
The material universe which has no proof? or the immaterial universe for which you do?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.
OK, so you've got these universes which you can't prove exist, and you observe them, or at least the one you favor, and you draw conclusions from a universe which may not exist, which makes you believe God exists.
All rightey!
Go sit on a railroad track and stay there until a train goes by if you don't believe in materialism. Or stand in a puddle of water and stick a wire into an outlet and let us know if you still don't believe in materialism. Solitary
Quote from: wolf39us on April 13, 2014, 07:16:48 AM
1) I make no claim that there exists only a material world. I make no claim that an immaterial world DOESN'T exist.
2) I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God. I make no claim that God does NOT exist.
Duly noted. If you make zero positive claims about reality, you are called a Nihilist, and you are therefore impossible to debate with. I commend you for the commitment to never being wrong by remaining silent. This is a good (but lazy and some may say cowardly) strategy, but as you have eliminated the possibility of being wrong you have at the same time eliminated the possibility of being right.
You can't win until you accept a positive position. If you choose to not take any position about the nature of reality, you don't win, you fore-fit, and therefore are not part of the conversation.
QuoteIt seems to me that you are starting with the assumption of God and working your way backwards. You assume God because you're not convinced of a material world.
Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.
This is how I believe all World Views should be built, from the ground up, but sadly most people just go to the World View Buffet and pick out a ready-made World View that fits with their preconceptions and hold on for dear life. A pre-made World View with assumptions effectively hidden deep within for convenience.
Merely by using the word "if" you invalidate your entire argument. It still comes back to what can be proven.
We can only know with certainty what can be tested by what means we have available. Apparent passage through time, repeatable experiences, historic data that is universally agreed upon, the nature of elements and matter, further discoveries through Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and so on. We may well discover that the universe is indeed something other than material, But you have not given another set of criteria by which to judge. You can only invalidate that by providing another method of testing that can in fact replace it. You have not.
You keep using examples like dreams and hallucinations. The mere fact that we can define them as different than reality invalidates that argument. We know the difference, therefore they can be discounted as valid.
Yes, there are theories that the universe is not "real" in the perceived sense of materialism, but until we have specific evidence of same, which you have not provided, we cannot assume that to be the case.
God is an assumption. God is by definition supernatural. Supernatural; above or outside of nature, possessing attributes or abilities not understandable in any natural way. To create a universe you have to have existed outside the universe. To claim that god is itself the universe, how did it create itself as the universe, or within the universe, when it had to be outside the universe to create it? That is a paradox- you are then back to orthodox beliefs of god being both inside and outside the universe, which is neither explainable nor understandable.
And why does a supernal god with all the potential ability to know everything, understand everything, see every future and exist forever throughout time, need to create a universe in the first place? And why did it need to create us to either recognize its existence or worship it?
If god is the universe, and we can eventually understand the universe, then it is not a supernatural being and by definition not god. If god is the universe, how did it create itself? Was it created by another god? If so, it is not god. If it created itself, we are back to the original problem; it had to have existed outside the universe to create it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:54:52 PM
Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.
But you don't stop there. You go on to assert that non-material things exist, one of which is some type of god.
Quote from: stromboli on April 13, 2014, 09:46:59 AM
Is English your second language? The link doesn't say what you think it said. It is a description of a standard double slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics:
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in midâ€'flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.
You say it describes "A Standard Double Slit Experiment in Quantum Mechanics" and then the first sentence you quoted says "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Definitely not "a standard double slit experiment" because it is a highly modified version produced in order to test very specific effects.
If you read the paragraph you yourself quoted you would see that what this experiment shows is that a scientist can make a decision AFTER the experiment is over that determines what happened during the experiment. Meaning that a decision made in the present effects the past of the particle being tested, without physically interacting with it, and without any causal link.
This effectively proves that reality is not objectively material because an objective material object would remain unaffected by a decision that is made far in the future. First off, in a material objective universe, material objects are not effected by decisions made, they are only effected by other material objects. Second, material objects are not effected by actions in the future as this violates causality. There should be nothing I can do in the present, that effects what happened in the past.
This experiment proves that reality is not mind independent, and also that objective causality is not consistent. That is why the abstract states, "“No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice.â€
The key words there are "causally disconnected" and "choice".
QuoteAnd it is also old, dated about 1999.
And when was the experiment done that proves your world view? Was it conducted by Isaac Newton himself? The date of the experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the results of the experiment. You should be above this garbage.
QuoteProof is arrived at by a consistent, repeatable methodology that comes to the same conclusion every time. You can call that materialism, but it is a simple fact.
I wouldn't call that Materialism, I'd call that science. And it works just as well whether we work in an Objective Material Universe or we live in a simulated Universe or anything else.
Quote:
Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.
[/i]
By what criteria do you prove that you exist? The hardness of your hand, the ability to process information, the fact that you can read a book and remember it? Congratulations, you are a materialist.
"I exist" is a statement that you recognize your own existence. So does everyone here on the forum. But BY WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR EXISTENCE? what means do you use to test the reality of your existence? You might be a glob of information on a circuit board in some holographic reality or a brain in a Matrix vat, but how do you prove it? What is your method of testing the reality of your existence? Come on, give us the criteria and method of your testing for your believed existence. Wow, blow me away with your prodigious knowledge, seriously.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 13, 2014, 11:24:48 AM
Even if it isn't, that doesn't automatically make it consistent with your worldview. This is the exact same mistake the anti-evolution folks make, which is thinking that "disproving" one idea instantly elevates your own above all the other possibilities. Your arrogance in thinking so, like theirs, is astounding; though I have seen it far too many times for it to be infuriating anymore.
I am not saying that if you can't prove your world view then mine is automatically right. I am just saying.... that you can't prove your world view. :biggrin2:
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 01:13:41 PM
You say it describes "A Standard Double Slit Experiment in Quantum Mechanics" and then the first sentence you quoted says "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Definitely not "a standard double slit experiment" because it is a highly modified version produced in order to test very specific effects.
If you read the paragraph you yourself quoted you would see that what this experiment shows is that a scientist can make a decision AFTER the experiment is over that determines what happened during the experiment. Meaning that a decision made in the present effects the past of the particle being tested, without physically interacting with it, and without any causal link.
This effectively proves that reality is not objectively material because an objective material object would remain unaffected by a decision that is made far in the future. First off, in a material objective universe, material objects are not effected by decisions made, they are only effected by other material objects. Second, material objects are not effected by actions in the future as this violates causality. There should be nothing I can do in the present, that effects what happened in the past.
This experiment proves that reality is not mind independent, and also that objective causality is not consistent. That is why the abstract states, "“No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice.â€
The key words there are "causally disconnected" and "choice".
And when was the experiment done that proves your world view? Was it conducted by Isaac Newton himself? The date of the experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the results of the experiment. You should be above this garbage.
I wouldn't call that Materialism, I'd call that science. And it works just as well whether we work in an Objective Material Universe or we live in a simulated Universe or anything else.
Boy, you are getting stupider with every post. The experiment was done in a lab by scientists to explore Quantum reality. The "findings" are "could alter" a qualifying phrase. It is the result of an experiment performed in the material world by material scientist with some form of measurable results. Measurable, as in the realm of a material world. A formalized test using scientific method, which is the criteria of measure in a material world. If something new is learned from scientific experiment, goody goody. but until science offers us a measurable, testable alternative to the measurable, testable methods we have now, we are still not outside of the realm of a knowable reality.
Oh and science is materialism, dumbass. It has provided us the means by which we measure everything in the material universe.
Your world view or your belief is haphazard at best. You have essentially blown off whatever methods of defining reality and said "mmm nope, don't buy it" but not provided any substitute.
Show us an alternative method of testing for reality
show us how to prove the existence of a supernatural god
show us how the universe is something other than a measurable, understandable existence.
If it is not measurable, not quantifiable, not knowable in any sense we can comprehend, than it is just your imaginary idea of what reality is. If you can comprehend it, then show us why.
What does the term 'proof' mean to a person whom is open to the option that we are all living in the matrix?
Hi Berati, nice to meet you,
Quote from: Berati on April 13, 2014, 12:13:31 PM
The first major problem is his repeated claim that “the Material Objective Universe is a positive claimâ€
It is NOT a positive claim, it is a shared experience. If we both see a tree, touch the tree, smell the tree, sit on the tree and so on… we share the experience of the tree.
Three people are playing World of Warcraft online. (a much more advanced version from 2000 years in our future.) All three see a tree. All three touch the tree. All three smell the tree. All three sit on the tree. They all share the experience of the same tree.
THEREFORE THE TREE IS OBJECTIVELY MATERIAL!!! ... is your argument.
You are saying that because they all three share the experience of this tree, then it therefore becomes a logical impossibility that the tree is a simulated tree, and in turn proves once and for all that this tree is an objective material tree. And I of course would disagree with you.
Shared experience does not equal Objective Material Universe.
QuoteAny claim that the tree is an illusion is therefore the positive claim and is what needs to be proven.
One of these three says, "Since we all see this tree, that means we are existing in a Material Objective Reality."
Another says, "I disagree. We would have the same experience in a simulation. We could have the same experience in a shared dream. We could have the same experience even if the apparent materiality of this tree were an illusion. Just because we share an experience does not mean that we live in an objective reality."
And the first one says, "Prove it!"
He doesn't have to, because he's not making a positive claim, the guy who is claiming that we DEFINITELY DO live in an objective material universe is making a positive claim and therefore, just like any positive claim, the burden of proof is on him.
QuoteCasporov is attempting to shift the burden of proof to avoid the sticky problem of proving his claim that there are more “things†than we can observe. One of those things being the amorphous “God†he wishes to prove the existence of. It seems to me that many of his detractors failed to catch his switch and accepted a burden of proof problem that was never theirs.
That you don't believe in god accrues no burden of proof. That you posit that we live in an objective Material universe does. If I were truly "shifting the burden of proof" as you are accusing me of doing. I would be saying, "PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST THEN!!" like an idiot. But that's not what I'm doing, so please don't accuse me of it.
QuoteThe second major problem is that he is asking for scientific proof to an unscientific question. In other words he is violating the principal of falsifiability. Solipsism (questioning reality) is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (as there is no way to falsify the concept)
Since solopsism deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment it follows that demanding scientific proof of a purely philosophical question is invalid. He is conflating philosophy with science.
Well, first of all, Solipsism does not equal "questioning reality." Solipsism is the belief that I am the only person that exists and everyone and everything else is an illusion. "Questioning reality" is called skepticism. They are not one in the same.
I am not demanding scientific proof, I am just demanding proof in general. Any kind will do, philosophical scientific or otherwise it makes no deference. I am only seeking justification for the belief that we live in Objective Material Universe.
The reason for this, is because if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility and so on. I do not wish to hold an incorrect world view, so I am asking all of you Materialists to please provide justification for your world view, so that I can make an informed decision about my own.
The fact that you cannot is telling. I am not playing games, shifting burdens of proof and playing philosophical tricks as you have framed me. I am legitimately interested in arriving at a correct world view with regards to reality as it really is. If it is Materialism, I will gladly accept it, but I will not accept it without the required evidence, proof, and definitely not without even the minimalist shred of justification or reason.
Unlike you I cannot just say, "It's not an assumption, it's a shared experience." Because I know that a "shared experience" does not equal "objective Material reality." I'm sure you've seen "The Matrix". As tacky as it is, it's a good analogy to demonstrate where your logic fails. Everyone sharing the same experiences doesn't mean that that they definitely exist in a material objective reality case closed. That is just faulty logic. Materialism must be assumed. Descartes didn't have such a good analogy, so he had to use the idea of a "demon" that projects a reality onto every one.
I am not demanding scientific proof, I am just demanding proof in general. Any kind will do, philosophical scientific or otherwise it makes no deference. I am only seeking justification for the belief that we live in Objective Material Universe.
The reason for this, is because if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility and so on. I do not wish to hold an incorrect world view, so I am asking all of you Materialists to please provide justification for your world view, so that I can make an informed decision about my own.
And once again we are back to you saying you demand evidence, and we are giving it to you, and then saying our evidence is invalid. WE DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY BELIEVING IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SAYS WE DO.
EVERY KNOWN METHOD OF MEASURING REALITY- THE PASSAGE OF TIME, THE REPEATABILITY OF EXPERIMENTS, THE CONSENSUS OPINION OF A VAST BODY OF OBSERVERS, SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE THE CONCLUSION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, THE MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSION OF PHYSICAL FUNDAMENTALS LIKE GRAVITY, THE TABLE OF ELEMENTS, THE EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG AND THE WHOLE LIST OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, AND THROUGH SCIENCE WE ARE ALWAYS FINDING MORE, ISN'T PROOF, ISN'T EVIDENCE, THEN WHAT IS?
You still haven't provided any other way of testing reality or proving your original statement, that materialism is invalid. Dismissing it is not providing a legitimate counter argument or proof.
Quote:
if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility
THANK YOU. YOU JUST BECAME AN ATHEIST.
Exactly, there never was a reason to believe in God. Whether or not a material universe exists does not automatically point to a "God" or "being" of any sort... these are assumptions which have no merit.
Quote from: wolf39us on April 15, 2014, 02:51:53 PM
Exactly, there never was a reason to believe in God. Whether or not a material universe exists does not automatically point to a "God" or "being" of any sort... these are assumptions which have no merit.
You mean I can's sell you on this?
You can't prove a material universe.
A non material universe may exist instead.
Yay, God!
Show him evidence that the material world exists, otherwise god exists.
You gotta love it, they come here asking us to believe in god, and when we don't, they resort to doubting science, logic, and reality.
Material is everything that exists. Immaterial can't be defined. If I ask you what whiskey is, and you tell me that it's not vodka, then you really haven't defined whiskey.
For the 100th time:
Immaterial (outside of space) + timeless (outside of time) = imaginary (outside of existence)
This thread was a dead horse like 2 pages ago.
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 13, 2014, 02:34:37 PM
I'm confused at what you consider a material universe. For all intents and purposed the characters in GTA5 do exist in a material universe. Cause and effect. We could easily all be in a computer simulation as well, but that would not change a single thing. I'm confused as to why you think it would. Nothing in "our reality" be any different. Our definitions would only exist within this reality. A chair would still be a chair, just as a chair in GTA5 is a chair in that universe. Of course, if we are in fact in a simulation we are in an almost infinitely superior one.
Obviously you recognize that there is a substantial difference between existing in a objective material universe and existing in a simulated universe.
An objective material universe exists independent of consciousness and mind. There are material objects that actually exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived and they and their interactions are the only things that actually exist.
In a simulated reality what we perceive as material objects are not actual material objects but non-physical information rendered as perceptions only when required to. To believe that these perceptions are actual material objects as they appear to be is referred to as "naive realism" and has been thoroughly discredited by scientific observation.
Now... to address your actual point. If we do indeed exist in a simulated universe, that does not change the "reality" of our experiences. Experiences are always "real". I think this is the point you are making. What does change is the actual nature of the reality we exist in. If materialism is true, then this universe exists on its own and it's very nature negates the possibility of everything non-physical including god, afterlife, and all other so called "supernatural" concepts.
Further, if you understand exactly what I am saying, and maintain that even if we exist in a simulated universe that we could still label it "material", you have this option. But then you must also maintain that all experiences had in dreams are experiences of material realities as well. All hallucinations are material, all simulations, all illusions. All experience is a "material" one.
I would accept this, but I choose to maintain that all experience is non-physical, rather than all experience is physical, on the grounds that as I understand Materialism it should be objective and independent of mind, rather than subjective and mind dependent. Otherwise it does not qualify as material.
QuoteNow, let's backtrack, you dismiss a material universe, which all evidence supports, and cling to the completely unsupported idea that a being/force/mind lives within the universe. What supports materialism? Absolutely everything. Everything we have ever found is material. We have never found anything immaterial. And no, GTA5 is not evidence of something immaterial. GTA5 is demonstrably material as well. The codes exist. What they transcribe exist. It exists just as much as this forum you are currently writing in.
This is interesting. You say "which all evidence supports." Okay that's pretty vague. "What supports materialism? Absolutely everything." Okay, still have not said anything. "Everything we have ever found is material." I disagree. Not even matter is material. It is 99.999999999% empty space and the 0.0000000001% that is not empty space isn't anything material either, it's an Ivan Value in a wave equation, and Mathematical Equations are concepts that hardly qualify as Material. They are more akin to ideas than material objects.
Of course in the Matrix everything they ever discovered was "apparently material" as well. But if they ever tried to prove Materialism they would fail, because no proof exists. To say the sentence "everything we have ever found is material" is not proof because I can do this, "everything we have ever found is immaterial" and now I have presented equal proof that you have. See? Not very convincing is it?
You say we have never found anything immaterial. But that's just flagrantly false. All reality we ever experience is at base "information" which we interpret as perceptions. Information is a non-physical concept. Experience is a non-physical concept. That which has experiences and interprets information is consciousness, what you are, also a non-physical concept. In essence, everything that exists and can be experienced is fundamentally non-physical all the way around, interpreted as physical or "material" sure, but ultimately immaterial.
So "everything we have ever found is immaterial". Take that.
The fucking moron still doesn't realize that to run a simulation you need computers, which are made of... TADA, matter/energy.
How many pages of this scrap before the fucking moron is banned? Any takers?
I'll go first: 31 pages
Quote from: Berati on April 13, 2014, 06:20:12 PM
I read the whole thread and it seems to me that he is sincere in his belief. But it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position) in order to allow himself the freedom to follow this cherished belief. Without the desire for the outcome he seeks, I don't think he would have made an error he seems capable of understanding.
Questioning reality should not be the default position? We should start with accepting reality? Which one, Objective Materialism? Naive Realism is the default position and we should start from there? Are you serious?? :think:
I totally and passionately 100% disagree. We should start by doubting as far as possible and begin only with what can be known with absolute certainty. We should not begin by just unquestioningly accepting a certain assertion about the nature of reality, it is not even clear which world view about reality you are suggesting should be just blindly accepted at the forefront?? It seems like a recipe for failure to me...
I do not start building my world view with any specific outcome in mind. I simply start with what can be known and work my way out from there. Where is the error I am making? Perhaps my only error was telling you my conclusion at the start of the thread but it seemed like a reasonable way to get this conversation started. Now you have conflated my conclusion with a "desire for outcome".
I cannot doubt that "I exist," that is the foundation on which I build. I do not start by just blindly accepting Materialism, that would be absolutely ridiculous for reasons that should be very obvious by now, even for those who have never taken the time to truly scrutinize their own world view before.
Hey, any time. This dude has a mental block made of pure Titanium.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 03:53:51 PM
I cannot doubt that "I exist," that is the foundation on which I build. I do not start by just blindly accepting Materialism, that would be absolutely ridiculous for reasons that should be very obvious by now, even for those who have never taken the time to truly scrutinize their own world view before.
Please provide the method by which you have come to the conclusion that you exist.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 14, 2014, 10:20:29 AM
What other options?
Simulism, Idealism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Substance Dualism, Immaterialism, etc etc etc
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 15, 2014, 03:43:13 PM
The fucking moron still doesn't realize that to run a simulation you need computers, which are made of... TADA, matter/energy.
How many pages of this scrap before the fucking moron is banned? Any takers?
I'll go first: 31 pages
He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?
Quote from: wolf39us on April 15, 2014, 04:02:28 PM
He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?
Which is why it'll run for awhile.
Quote from: aileron on April 14, 2014, 10:57:16 AM
"can we all agree that Materialism is an unsupported assumption?" Nope.
If it is not an unsupported assumption, then that means there is surely proof or evidence to support it. If it is an unsupported assumption, then that means that there is not any proof or evidence to support it.
So if you do not agree that there is no proof or evidence for Materialism, then simply provide the proof or evidence that supports it. Very easy and simple.
Alright, so I just had to get caught up and reply to all the replies from the last few days. Now that I'm caught up, I'll start replying to the ones that have been posted today. I'm not ignoring you, just replying in order.
Lets try to get a few things straight. You are nearly getting my point, but are still missing it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I think I understand you now. You are saying that all I am doing is expecting proof that is not possible to be given. So your complaint is that I am asking you for proof when there isn't any.
I apologize for inconveniencing you, but with all do respects, that's not my problem. If you make a positive claim about reality, you are obligated to justify your claim with evidence. Or else admit that it is an unprovable assumption.
1) If I'm a materialist; it's a methodological materialist. Because that's all that science can measure. I'm not denying the possibility of an immaterial world, nor am I asserting that a material one is all there is. It is just all that we can observe and thus all there is to assume within reason.
It is allways possible that there is a immaterial world conjuring something that makes it look like a material one too us, but all I'm saying is that it seems like one to us. And anything beyond that, would require the necessary proof.
2) By your standards I've never argued that it is provable. But nothing is by your standards. Because as your reasoning seems to go (by what you think is in the article you provided below): here's something that doesn't seem to fit in our current understanding of reality so it must be a non-material reality. But let's say that everyone assumed there to be an immaterial reality. One could always possit; but is it not possible that there is some natural law that we have not discovered yet that would explain all we can't explain yet and thus make it a material universe?
One can always ask another question. And if your provided article would prove what you claim it to prove, I could still ask that question. It would still not be ultimate proof. And it never will be.
3) Knowing that the ultimate and undeniable proof in your standards is in principle unachievable, it is always best to leave guessing and assuming beyond what limited proof we do have, out of the question.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I agree with what you are saying here. Just because there are other conceivable (even though very unlikely) theories that explain the same phenomena, that does not necessarily mean that the prevailing theory is false. I agree with this.
This is not what is occurring with respect to Materialism however. Materialism is not the most likely explanation. Nick Bostrom has argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated reality using pure statistical analysis.
It is not the case that there is a mountain of undeniable evidence that supports the assumption of Materialism and all other possible alternatives to Materialism are highly unlikely imaginative fantasies.... if that is how you perceive it than you are grandly mistaken and quite ignorant of the evidence and arguments that oppose Materialism.
4) Bostrom has admitted that there are no empirical reasons to assume the simulation-hypothesis to be true. It's an interesting train of thought, true, but not proven.
5) Do you know one of the reasons why there would be no empirical reasons? Because science is founded upon 'methodological materialism'. It's all it extends to. Even if we were a simulated reality our science would not be able to find a way to measure to validate or invalidate it's own framework in measurable works
6) If I'm ignorant, provide proof. Just saying I'm ignorant won't help me. I'm ignorant to a lot of things, just like you or anyone else. (So far all you've done is try to get EVERYONE on the same page and then seemingly hope to provide a knock-out. (And provide an article you clearly do not understand.) That's never going to work, even if you are right you're going to have people not agreeing with you. But present your case clearly and decisively and if it makes sense and I still reject it, then I'm a fucktard. But untill then, stop pulling everyone's leg.)
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578) ... is just one example of the growing mountain of direct evidence that contradicts the assumption of Materialism.
I am not denying that Materialism has been a working model for a very long time. That is not contested. What I am denying is that it is an unquestionable truth. (which quite a lot of Atheists seem to mistakenly believe as this thread should demonstrate)
Materialism is at base, a bare assumption. Philosophically it is unjustifiable. No man can produce a single piece of evidence to support it and certainly no proof. But beyond that, there exists direct evidence that disproves it as a theory about reality.
7) That article does not provide proof of your claim the way I understand it. If you think it does, explain to me why you've reached that conclusion.
8) Unquestionable truth -> See earlier. Nothing is an unquestionable truth.
9) Outside of what I've previously called 'limited proof', I agree there is none. But it is the only world-view with testable and measurable and consistent 'limited proof'. There is, however, no proof outside of 'limited proof'. And if there is, provide it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
What I am arguing is not the same as arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster may have magically planted fossils in the ground vs there is an actual fossil record that demonstrates that creatures evolve physically over time.
What I am arguing is more like arguing that because when a ship arrives on the horizon from far out at sea, it gradually appears top to bottom vs appearing all at once, a sign that the earth is a sphere and not flat, even though flat earth theory was quite a good model and widely accepted for a very very long time.
10) I know that's not what you argue. But that's why it was an analogy. What you are arguing is that outside of 'limited proof' and thus our 'limited conclusions' exists a grander and more intricate and complex solution that renders the nature of the 'limited proof' moot without providing the extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim.
11) The round-earth theory, just like the theory of gravity or whatever theory, still needed evidence. Provide it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Information is not material, and reality is ultimately information based, therefore reality is not material. This can be assumed yes, and it is also possible to be proven.
12) If you are going to use the term 'information', then please define it. Because like 'God', many people define it in many ways. And if your concept of God is any indication, you'd better explain the shit out of this one unless you want another clusterfuck of miscommunication.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The Atheist has no burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of any particular God he disbelieves in. No Atheist is required to prove that God does not exist, this is true. But if a person is an Atheist because they are a Materialist and believes that we live in a material objective universe that does not require any God, then that Atheist is required to prove his positive claim about reality. Atheism is his negative position, Materialism is his positive position. He is required to justify his positive assertion.
13) I'm not an atheïst because I'm a materialist. I'm an atheïst because there is no convincing proof for a God. And even if you were to prove our reality to be 'immaterial', something you have as of yet not done, that would not convince me of a God.
13a) The reason for this is at the one hand that your definition of a God is not 'supernatural' and has no reason to be concidered 'an entity'.
13b) And on the other hand it would not prove it's existance. Because even if you were to prove that our perceived reality is 'immaterial' I might just as wel be a brain in a vat being controlled by aliens who do live in a material universe as I would be a part of a Hive-mind-(for a lack of a better name)God. And I'm not going to call my alien overlords God, and neither should you. Viva la resistance.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
When Flat Earth Theory was proven false, was all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven with it? No. Absolutely and emphatically not. If you want to survey land you are farming you still use Flat Earth Theory. All of the proofs made within it's framework still holds because flat earth theory was an appoximation that is still accurate to this day for short distances.
When Einstein proved that Newton's Physics was ultimately false, did all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven? No. Just because we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory now doesn't mean that knocking billiards balls into other billiards balls doesn't cause a reaction that Newton proved within his framework. An apple still falls at the same rate, even though Newtonian Physics isn't ultimately correct. It was an approximation that is still accurate at certain sizes and speeds.
14) Empathically? What do you mean by that. Not joshing you (English isn't my first language), just never heard that expression in that way before.
15) I understand what you are trying to say. But, and this is not a major point, we don't use the disproven theories anymore. The new ones just envellop the usefull bits. But that's semantics.
16) But these replacing and newer theories can be made to make predictable and testable measurements within the framework of science (a 'methodological materialist concept'). The moment you can, you get limited credit for your idea. (Not the hive-mind-bit, but the immaterial bit.)
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Similarly, Materialism is a assumption, a model that works to a degree because it is an approximation. The problem is when people believe it to be an unquestionable truth.
17) It just so happens to be the only 'assumption' (by your definition) that does not exceed what our limited proof provides.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
You seem to be finally admitting that Materialism is an unjustified assumption, which i commend. Thank you. But you immediately and with the same breath have to throw in the "but you can't prove yours either!" :grin: And that's okay.
18) Again, by your standards I've never denied it. But again, by your standards of proof, everything is unjustified: including your assumption.
19) To entertain the simulation hypothesis is one thing. But to jump to the hive-mind hypothesis you hold, is another. In itself the bare simulation-hypothesis or the immaterialist-hypothesis is a positive claim you actually can't provide 'ultimate proof' for, as I've said earlier. Not by your standards. But to then jump to 'hive-mind-God-hypothesis' is even more in need of a claim because you're just adding claims without adding proof. You skip 'physical simulation', 'brain-computer interface', 'brain-in-a-vat', 'emigration', 'virtual world simulation', 'virtual solipsic simulation', ... You use them to explain your possibility of this all being an immaterial reality, but disregard them even though they are just as likely (which is not very) as your 'God-Hive-Mind-idea'.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
If it can be proven that information is the base of reality, then it will be proven that reality is ultimately immaterial, and the perceived materiality is an illusion produced by our experience of it, an approximation, a guess, an assumption. I believe that information as the base reality would prove that we live in an immaterial universe rather than just assume it as so.
20) This is why you need to define 'information' so I can know if I agree or disagree. (I'm leaning towards the latter, but you're unclear.)
21) It wouldn't prove it. Not by your standards. I can always ask another question and superimpose either a hypothetical material-natural law that could encompass all anomalies we encounter without providing proof (like you are doing in reverse here).
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality. I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality, and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.
22) Your understanding of reality has been provided no shred of proof, limited or otherwise, of being true.
23) The immaterial reality would not automatically lead to your definition of God. You are making a non-sequitur.
24) Your definition of God would fare better with another name. Because even if it were proven real, I would not call it God nor call myself a Theïst. Probably not even a deïst.
And for a bonus: 25) I saw you say to Stromboli that the fact that the experiment was 15 years old, it did not prove it to be false. You are most certainly right about this. But you also said, if I'm not mistaken, in an earlier post, that it proved your point conclusively. As in without question. We've been living in a internet-equiped-globa society for decades now in which science works through a peer-review system.
If, fifteen years ago, that's a WHOLE DECADE AND A HALF, there would have been conclusive scientific proof of us living in an immaterial universe, this would be accepted by now. At least by scientists. It would be either taught in schools by now, or a major part of religious people would be trying to keep it out of school while another major part would be screaming that they knew it all along and that it just proves their theïstic views. There would be wide-spread agreement amongst scientists and they would be debating that instead of or alongside with evolution and such on television with ignorant twits.
The fact that it's 'relatively old' indeed does nothing to crush it's validity. The fact that it's swayed so little in a world-wide-netwerk-of-communication-technology-and-a-peer-reviewed-system does. Which leads to much more persuasive conclusions, like one of these two: One, it's not conclusive at all. Or two, you misunderstand what it conclusively proves.
Quote from: wolf39us on April 15, 2014, 04:02:28 PM
He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?
Please not ban this funny troll. This is fun.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 04:06:06 PM
If it is not an unsupported assumption, then that means there is surely proof or evidence to support it. If it is an unsupported assumption, then that means that there is not any proof or evidence to support it.
So if you do not agree that there is no proof or evidence for Materialism, then simply provide the proof or evidence that supports it. Very easy and simple.
The "if" word again. Would you please provide evidence to prove that materialism is invalid? You haven't done that.
would you please provide the method by which you yourself know that you exist?
would you please explain what method of testing reality you would use if all the methods of testing we now use are invalid?
Would please explain how you can prove that a god exists- a supernatural god with all that the definition of a god entails.
I already gave you a test for the material universe; go kick a boulder. That, by the way, is not my invention. It is an actual test for the existence of a material universe.
It involves an action participatory with natural elements
it provides a measurable outcome
it is testable in several ways- the mark on the boulder, the pain in your toe, the damage to your toe and so forth
it demonstrates that participatory actions exist through time
it is recognizable universally by everyone with a thinking brain
it is repeatable, recordable and can be documented as existing in many different ways.
And it is not a dream or a hallucination because the outcome will remain, even after awakening
These are all tests of reality. How can you say it is an unsupported assumption if there are so many ways to verify it?
Yep, matter, you can't prove it, but God, well, obviously exists, no proof required...
:doh:
Quote from: leo on April 15, 2014, 04:38:11 PM
Please not ban this funny troll. This is fun.
Not until page 31, please,please,please...
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 03:41:03 PM
Obviously you recognize that there is a substantial difference between existing in a objective material universe and existing in a simulated universe.
An objective material universe exists independent of consciousness and mind. There are material objects that actually exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived and they and their interactions are the only things that actually exist.
So does GTA. If everyony sentient agent on earth days, but a GTA game remains the codes and building blocks are still there in said world.
QuoteIn a simulated reality what we perceive as material objects are not actual material objects but non-physical information rendered as perceptions only when required to. To believe that these perceptions are actual material objects as they appear to be is referred to as "naive realism" and has been thoroughly discredited by scientific observation.
The objects the codes transcribe themselves are not material to us in this reality, of course not - but if there were sentient agents in the GTA5 universe - THEY WOULD BE! And this is where you are demonstrably wrong. "This is not a pipe" cannot be said if you can actually smoke with it. We seperate a drawing of a object and the object existing in our reality - our reality being simulated would in no way change this. A pipe in this reality would continue to be a pipe in this reality.
QuoteNow... to address your actual point. If we do indeed exist in a simulated universe, that does not change the "reality" of our experiences. Experiences are always "real". I think this is the point you are making. What does change is the actual nature of the reality we exist in. If materialism is true, then this universe exists on its own and it's very nature negates the possibility of everything non-physical including god, afterlife, and all other so called "supernatural" concepts.
Incorrect again. If simulated the universe could very well exist on it's own as well, just as the world in a GTA5 game still exists on it's own.
But I am glad you concur that this reality exists. That's all anyone is claiming, and that labels every argument you've stated previously incorrect on your own assumption. You have stated that the theist and the atheist agreeing that the world exists is a flaw and means the theist will always lose, but that's nonsense. The existence of the universe in no way negates the possibility of a theistic god or any other form of creator.
But here's the kicker, and you need to think about this: None of this has any bearing on any god existing. So far nothing implies any gods exist.
QuoteFurther, if you understand exactly what I am saying, and maintain that even if we exist in a simulated universe that we could still label it "material", you have this option. But then you must also maintain that all experiences had in dreams are experiences of material realities as well.
Dreams obviously exist in the materialistic sense as we can even film them these days. What creates the dreams exist in our brain. But the experiences themselves do not take place in this reality, which is the one we define existence from. Dreams takes place in the worlds your mind creates for you. But sure, you have had said experiences all the same, only they were dream experiences, which is an important qualifier.
QuoteAll hallucinations are material, all simulations, all illusions. All experience is a "material" one.
Incorrect. We define existence from the reality we live in. Where as dreams exists in their own separate realities created by our own bodies and dream versions of ourselves may touch them - the things we see are not materialistic in this realm. We cannot bring them over. This make them not materialistic to this reality in the sense you imply - though again, dreams obviously exist. Hallucinations exists as well, and we can document them, but we can not touch what we hallucinate, and it does not exist in our reality.
QuoteI would accept this, but I choose to maintain that all experience is non-physical, rather than all experience is physical, on the grounds that as I understand Materialism it should be objective and independent of mind, rather than subjective and mind dependent. Otherwise it does not qualify as material.
Now you are really confused. Physical/Non-physical has any connection to the subjective and mind dependent - both can exist objectively and independent of mind. And again, a GTA game exists objectively, and independent of mind - though in this particular simulation we can control certain characters. Leave the game on and walk out of the room on the other hand and it exists independent of any mind to observe it.
QuoteThis is interesting. You say "which all evidence supports." Okay that's pretty vague. "What supports materialism? Absolutely everything." Okay, still have not said anything. "Everything we have ever found is material." I disagree. Not even matter is material. It is 99.999999999% empty space and the 0.0000000001% that is not empty space isn't anything material either, it's an Ivan Value in a wave equation, and Mathematical Equations are concepts that hardly qualify as Material. They are more akin to ideas than material objects.
Ok, what is everything? Everything we touch is material. Why? Because we can touch it. It objectively exists independent of mind. We can scan it on a computer, and it will capture it. We can take measurements. Bringing up empty space is irrelevant, the objects still exists and we can demonstrate them to. I can pick up a rock, throw it and break a window. Cause and effect. These things exist.
Now, you can make outlandish claims about all of this existing in a dream, or a mind is controlling all of this - but nothing supports that hypothesis. On the other hand we all share this reality and observe it. I am not a materialist in the sense that I say it's obviously 100% fact that solipsism isn't correct, etc. My claim is simply that nothing supports or implies solipsism - while everything implies a materialistic universe existing independent of mind.
QuoteOf course in the Matrix everything they ever discovered was "apparently material" as well. But if they ever tried to prove Materialism they would fail, because no proof exists. To say the sentence "everything we have ever found is material" is not proof because I can do this, "everything we have ever found is immaterial" and now I have presented equal proof that you have. See? Not very convincing is it?
I can touch a rock, you can touch a rock, this heavily implies the rock exists. This is evidence. What evidence can you bring forth that materialism doesn't exist. Even with your empty space argument you are acknowledging materialism. In fact at least one of us has to exist for this scenario to make any sense. If one of us exists, the existing person by definition objectively exist - and that petty much proves materialism.
QuoteYou say we have never found anything immaterial. But that's just flagrantly false. All reality we ever experience is at base "information" which we interpret as perceptions. Information is a non-physical concept. Experience is a non-physical concept. That which has experiences and interprets information is consciousness, what you are, also a non-physical concept. In essence, everything that exists and can be experienced is fundamentally non-physical all the way around, interpreted as physical or "material" sure, but ultimately immaterial.
Incorrect again. Our thoughts are created by our brains, and therefor exists. If we had the technology we could observe how our minds and thoughts work "independent of mind". We are really just advanced robots functioning by cause and effect. There is no magic here.
QuoteSo "everything we have ever found is immaterial". Take that.
Yeah, I think you're having a laugh and trolling and I've wasted to much time on you.
I concur. I'll call troll as well. I'm done.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 01:17:14 PM
I am not saying that if you can't prove your world view then mine is automatically right. I am just saying.... that you can't prove your world view. :biggrin2:
You don't even know what my worldview is. Literally the only thing you know about me is that I don't think your god exists. And in any case, you've yet to address the fact that
your worldview can't be proven.
QuoteQuestioning reality should not be the default position?
No, it should not. Assuming what we both experience is an illusion is the claim. The burden of proof is on you to show our shared observations are illusions. Observations are not claims. Claims of illusions are claims.
QuoteWe should start with accepting reality?
Of course. Not accepting reality is called psychosis.
QuoteI totally and passionately 100% disagree.
Then your are totally passionately 100% wrong.
We start by accepting the world around us.
Think of the Matrix since that is basically what you are proposing. Morpheus tells Neo that you can't be told what the Matrix is you have to see it yourself. So he gives him a red pill (thereby accepting the burden of proof) and proves to Neo that the Matrix wasn't real.
You are not providing the red pill. You are demanding that we accept your claim that the Material world is an illusion. Where is my red pill?
Furthermore, you are confusing science with philosophy. You are taking a solipsist position (purely philosophical and not falsifiable) and demanding scientific evidence to disprove your illusion assumption. For any question to be considered scientific it has to be falsifiable.
There are fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
Page 16 and counting,
(please make it to 31... :whistle:)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 15, 2014, 06:42:07 PM
Page 16 and counting,
(please make it to 31... :whistle:)
when members are actively contributing 6,7 18 paragraph responses then we can't really destroy such a fine conversation for our more..er....arguable members.
Quote from: aitm on April 15, 2014, 06:45:23 PM
when members are actively contributing 6,7 18 paragraph responses then we can't really destroy such a fine conversation for our more..er....arguable members.
:axe:
I also can not believe this thread is still going. I tried to read it from the start but when people start writing entire books as their post I start to get bored and my mind wanders. Especially on subjects that don't interest me like god.
Quotemy mind wanders.
tsk tsk..your mind is not wandering, it is coalescing with other parts of the non-physical subjective parts of the universe...at that moment, unbeknownst to you....you were god, BUTTTTT then you fucked up and typed a response instead of curing hatred....you were a piece of shit god!
In this thread in general Casparov you're completely lost in the woods. It's a naive question to ask whether something is or isn't proven. Proving anything is dependent on what would satisfy a person that it's been proven.
For example, is it proven that Earth orbits the sun? When you claim that someone can't prove something, the unstated assumption is that they can't proven it to your personal satisfaction.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
Gather your verifiable proof and post it here, till then I classify you with the rest of the delusional theists that will buy any pile of crap found in the buy bull.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on April 15, 2014, 09:15:56 PM
Gather your verifiable proof and post it here, till then I classify you with the rest of the delusional theists that will buy any pile of crap found in the buy bull.
The Argument
These responses are getting very long and apparently people are not wanting to read entire books, so what I will do here is try to include my complete argument for people in this post. And then I will continue to respond to each individual response as usual. So this is for you guys who are getting lost in the long responses, here's one large post to describe my position:
I start from scratch. Assuming nothing and desiring no particular outcome over any others. I then ask what I can know.
The answer to this question is simply, "I exist". I do not know that my perceptions are true, even my own hands and body could be false perceptions. I find that I am able to doubt absolutely everything except my own existence. I cannot doubt my own existence because by the very act of doubting itself I would be demonstrating my existence. "I think, therefore I am" kind of thing. As long as I am aware, and am having experiences, I am unable to doubt that I exist. Therefore, I know that I exist with absolute certainty and cannot be wrong about this.
From there my only real next logical move is solipsism, my own mind is the only thing I can know exists with any kind of certainty, but the interactions I have with other seemingly conscious beings are so very convincing, and they claim to have minds too which seems likely based on my own knowledge of my own mind, so I seek a solution to solipsism. I do not feel comfortable with solipsism so I seek a way out. Upon speaking with most of these other conscious beings, they inform me that the reality I am perceiving is in fact an objective Material universe that exists independent of observation.
Now, because I am being very cautious and trying to maintain rational skepticism in order to build a sound world view, I am interested in entertaining Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, but first would like to hear the case. When another presents Materialism as a solution to me, they are making a positive claim about reality which is subject to the burden of proof. This assertion then requires evidence, or else it is just a bare assertion with nothing to support it.
I know that my own mind exists. But I quickly learn that there is no proof for Materialism. It is a bald assumption, unsupported and unjustified.
This is because we do not observe the exterior world directly. We do not perceive matter itself. What we perceive is a
representation of the outside world produced by filtered information and interpreted by our own conscious experience. In Philosophy this is known as the Veil of Perception Problem. Naive Realism is the belief that what we perceive is exactly as it really it, and this seems to be the position of the Materialists I encounter. There is no evidence to support this position, and certainly no proof.
Materialism is presented to me as a possible solution to Solipsism but it is an unjustified assumption because of the Veil of Perception Problem, the equal possibility of other explanations such as the Simulation Argument, and the complete and utter lack of evidence to support it. I also know that Materialism states that the only things that exist are material objects and their interactions, which seems to negate the existence of my Mind, the only thing I really know with certainty actually exists.
In order to accept Materialism I would have to sacrifice the only thing I know with absolute certainty in favor of an unprovable unjustified assumption. Those that do this seem to do so out of fear more than anything else because Materialism provides a simple and comfortable explanation that eases the uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty. The universe and everything it get wrapped up with a pretty little Material bow. But the Game Ender for me when it comes to Materialism is the growing amount of scientific evidence that seems to directly refute Materialism, therefore, after all is said and done, I am forced to remain skeptical.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
Quote“While a number of philosophical ideas may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Materialism is not.†- Eugene Wigner
This is what I learn with regards to Materialism:
1) Mind exists.
2) Mind is immaterial.
3) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
4) Materialism is an unprovable assumption.
5) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.
C1) I know that Mind exists but Materialism requires that it does not, therefore Mind is not compatible with Materialism and I cannot doubt the existence of my Mind so Materialism must be a false assumption about the nature of reality.
C2) Two key characteristics of a Material Universe are the Principle of Causality and Local Realism and yet recent scientific experimentation has conclusively demonstrated that both of these characteristics of a Material Universe can be violated, therefore Materialism is a false assumption about the nature of reality.
Plus it is impossible to provide even a shred of evidence, proof, or justification for asserting Materialism beyond bare assumption. So with Materialists unable to provide a convincing argument for their world view, I am still left with Solipsism but searching for a way out.
So I talk to more people, and they assert that the solution to Solipsism is obviously Substance Dualism. They say that mind exists, which I agree with, and they also say that matter exists. They say that both existence simultaneously, mind existing in the Material Objective World. I like this idea because at first it seems like the best of both worlds, but I want to remain skeptical of all claims, and so, knowing that this too is a positive assertion about the nature of reality, I know that it too is subject to the burden of proof, and so I seek evidence to justify this positive claim.
What I discover is even worse than what I got for Materialism. All of the same problems of Materialism are still there, the Veil of Perception Problem, the Simulation Argument, the complete lack of any evidence, but the Game Ender for Substance Dualism is the Causal Interaction Problem. It is impossible to explain how immaterial mind can interact with material objects. Material Objects by definition cannot be effected by anything immaterial. This for me, makes Substance Dualism an impossibility, and another failed attempt to resolve Solipsism, and thus I am forced to remain skeptical.
I wont go into it here, but Substance Dualism is probably the most thoroughly refuted assertion about reality out there.
So what options do I have left? Well... There is one more, and here it goes:
P1.) Minds can exist in a solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Minds are not material.

P3.) Substance dualism is impossible.

C2.) Matter can not possibly exist, all that can exist is mind, and thus Monistic Idealism is true.
Monistic Idealism is a solution to Solipsism that does not suffer from any of the problems the other explanations do. It is even consistent with modern Quantum Experimentation that is slowly doing away with Materialism and Realism in general. Idealism states that reality is a mental construct, and does not exist dependent of mind.
If all is mind, and mind is immaterial, then it follows that the apparent objective material reality we experience is in fact a mental construct, as well as the apparent individuality and separateness we seem to possess because what is immaterial does not have definite boundaries by definition. Objectivity and separateness are illusions.
All consciousness and all experience and all existence together as one grand thing in the Tenth Dimension, is worthy of the Title "God."I then conclude that Idealism is more reasonable and more justified than both Substance Dualism and Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, and also more consistent with current scientific experimentation.
1) Materialism if true would negate the existence of God, afterlife, soul, mind, and all other things immaterial.
2) Substance Dualism would save the intuition to cling to Realism with regards to perceptions but also allows for the existence of immaterial such as mind, soul, gods, afterlife etc into the mix.
3) Idealism rejects the intuition of Naive Realism but expands the undoubtable knowledge of the existence of mind to include our perceptions, (even those perceptions that seems extremely physical and objectively material) and as the only rational alternative to solipsism, also just so happens to allow for and even necessitate the existence of mind, god, afterlife, and all other things immaterial, because it states that all is immaterial, and all is mind.
"God" in this world view would then be analogous to Rob Bryanton's description of the tenth dimension: A mind with ultimate degrees of freedom encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once.
FIN
P.S. Turned into another book.... I tried.
A video for my homies. Enjoy.
P.S. This is an interview with the man who conducted the experiments that I have posted.
QuoteI am interested in entertaining Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, but first would like to hear the case.
Not going to bother reading the rest of your post after that. As a matter of fact, forget making the case for materialism and just seriously doubt all knowledge you have about the world, including gravity, and go to work or school tomorrow through the window in your home and not your front door. I hope you reside on the fifth floor of your building.
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
1) Mind exists.
2) Mind is immaterial.
4) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
5) Mind is not reducible to matter.
6) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.
2) Prove it
Guess number 3 is immaterial?
5) oh, 2 again.
6) I hope you've got very strong evidence to support your sue of the word "refutes". Besides, according to you argument all that is irreverent because the results and what is being studied could give any possible result--even proving materialism--while simply be a non-existent illusion, right?
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
P1.) Minds can exist in solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Minds are not material.

If the form of your argument is valid, then the term can be replaced:
P1.) Bananas can exist in solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Bananas are not material.

Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AMAll consciousness and all experience and all existence together as one grand thing in the Tenth Dimension, is worthy of the Title "God."
Where exactly did I miss the proof of dimensions, let alone ten, other consciousness or any of this?
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
3) Idealism rejects the intuition of Naive Realism but expands the undoubtable knowledge of the existence of mind to include our perceptions, (even those perceptions that seems extremely physical and objectively material) and as the only rational alternative to solipsism, *also just so happens to allow for and even *necessitate* the existence of mind, god, afterlife, and all other things immaterial, because it states that all is immaterial, and all is mind.*
Do we have to assume the defense of all this is in part two?
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
"God" in this world view would then be analogous to Rob Bryanton's description of the tenth dimension: A mind with ultimate degrees of freedom encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once.
Something which, even accepting your above argument, you've failed to even approach let alone provide support for. Unless you are going to claim your mind (the only think you can know exists, remember) is "encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once" I can't see how this is anything but a non-sequitur.
@sasuke
lol You're right, I should have said, "No need to hear the case for Materialism, I choose to accept it on blind faith grounded in a firm belief in Naive Realism. Case closed!" and just ended it right there huh?
God resides in his timeless eternal grotto within his omni-verse. He conditions the multi-verses and perpetuates his spiral entities. He is beyond the idea of personality, since that is a human concept and no mind can truly fathom his essence as he is more than just the embodiment of mankind's collective erudition...Idealism is also what i believe. Our minds are made to further knowledge, divinely or obscurely. It should be obvious that god exists to anyone by now due to scientific findings, but the intricacies of todays evolving materialistic cultures and money-driven ideals have bred ignorance throughout the communities...don't you guys know that extra dimensional fields propagate universally? :)
You can't prove matter, that's too hard for you but readily, without any proof, you assert: MIND IS IMMATERIAL...
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
If you can't see that you have a hidden agenda you're a fucking moron.
Page 17 of crap from Gasparov, and counting...
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
2) Mind is immaterial.
This is demonstrably false. You've made an error here.
Quote1) Mind exists.
OK, I think therefore I am
Quote2) Mind is immaterial.
Major unproven assumption on your part.
Quote3) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
I don't think so. Energy also exists and can be converted into matter and I'm pretty sure all your opponents here agree.
Quote4) Materialism is an unprovable assumption.
So is immaterialism. You say you want to proceed logically so what to do with these philosophical dead ends? The only logical next step is "I feel therefore I'm real" Everyone (including you) lives there lives like this. You have no logical alternative therefore...
Observations are not claims. If you doubt what everyone including yourself observes.. then you carry the burden of proof. I can't stress this enough and you keep avoiding it. YOU have the burden of proof regardless of how much you try to dodge it.
Quote5) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.
Is there anyone left who doubts E=mc2?
Yeah reading that wall of text is a whole lot of fuck that. Casaprov I know that you are trying to provide the most information that you can, but I sincerely believe that most people will just skip over your posts for the shear fact that they are walls of insanely long text.
Ain't no one got time for dat!
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:03:36 AM
You can't prove matter, that's too hard for you but readily, without any proof, you assert: MIND IS IMMATERIAL...
I don't know how much clearer you could be in pointing out this double standard to Casper, but I don't think he realizes what he's doing. I hate to sound like the all knowing seer, but I saw this coming several pages back. It's such as basic flaw in reasoning, but as simple as it is, he doesn't get it. He requires no evidence for what he believes, but demands evidence from everyone else. What a putz.
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 02:47:56 AM
@sasuke
lol You're right, I should have said, "No need to hear the case for Materialism, I choose to accept it on blind faith grounded in a firm belief in Naive Realism. Case closed!" and just ended it right there huh?
I wasn't talking about accepting materialism. You think that solipsism is a good view to adopt. I'm just encouraging you to explore and experiment with that idea. Have you tried flying to work today, like Superman?
Quote from: SGOS on April 16, 2014, 09:30:12 AM
I don't know how much clearer you could be in pointing out this double standard to Casper, but I don't think he realizes what he's doing. I hate to sound like the all knowing seer, but I saw this coming several pages back. It's such as basic flaw in reasoning, but as simple as it is, he doesn't get it. He requires no evidence for what he believes, but demands evidence from everyone else. What a putz.
And you can see that he has an agenda: once he asserts that mind is immaterial, then it's easy to just say that the immaterial does exist, and the next thing, "God exists" isn't much of a problem to just blatantly assert it.
As Feynman once said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Gasparov is fooling no one but himself.
Quote from: wolf39us on April 16, 2014, 09:19:09 AM
Yeah reading that wall of text is a whole lot of fuck that. Casaprov I know that you are trying to provide the most information that you can, but I sincerely believe that most people will just skip over your posts for the shear fact that they are walls of insanely long text.
Ain't no one got time for dat!
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
That wall of text is nothing but obfuscation.
This is why I hate it when some scientists say the world is more mental than material. Einstein showed that photons are particles that do work. Particles are material objects, as are electrons. Quantum physics is still talking about particles, not mental processes, and even if they were, mental processes involve particles. :fU: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on April 16, 2014, 11:08:51 AM
This is why I hate it when some scientists say the world is more mental than material. Einstein showed that photons are particles that do work. Particles are material objects, as are electrons. Quantum physics is still talking about particles, not mental processes, and even if they were, mental processes involve particles. :fU: Solitary
And there isn't a mental process without the brain, again a material thing
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:06:23 AM
Page 17 of crap from Gasparov, and counting...
[/quoteQuote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:06:23 AM
Page 17 of crap from Gasparov, and counting...
Let's see how far this tread goes. He is repeating the same crap so far.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:06:23 AM
Page 17 of crap from Gasparov, and counting...
Lol JP you might make it. :biggrin:
We should start a pool. Winner gets a prize like Internets, or something.
I'm game.
I lost some of my possibly imaginary money today. I'm not sure how to feel about it after reading all of this.
Casparaov, you are dodging the burden of proof problem. So I will try once again to get you accept what has been yours all along.
You said
QuoteI start from scratch. Assuming nothing and desiring no particular outcome over any others. I then ask what I can know.
The answer to this question is simply, "I exist".
Fine, we all agree you can start with I think therefore I am.
QuoteI do not know that my perceptions are true, even my own hands and body could be false perceptions. I find that I am able to doubt absolutely everything except my own existence.
Doubt away.
QuoteFrom there my only real next logical move is solipsism
Absolutely wrong! While it is valid to doubt existence, to conclude non existence is illogical at this point. I will point out that while you may say this, you behave differently from your stated belief. You have been asked several times to jump out of a building to show faith in your claim that the world is not real. You don't because it's not logical to gamble your very existence on an unprovable philosophical position. So you take the only logical step available. You don't jump.
The only way you or anyone else can (and does) proceed logically from "I think therefore I am" is "
I feel therefore I'm real"Even if it's an assumption it is the only logical assumption you can make.
Here is an example:
You awake at the edge of cliff with no knowledge of how you got there. You know you exist because you can think. You know nothing else for sure. What is your next logical step? If you said to assume nothing is real (solipsism) and jump off the cliff you are wrong, yet this is the argument you are making.
If you awake at the edge of the cliff with another person (who may be an illusion) and you want to convince that person to jump over the cliff with you... You have the burden of proof to convince that other person that everything you are both feeling and observing is an illusion.
YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF!
I always think it's funny when solipsists engage themselves on the internets.
BTW, the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is no proof of existence simply because if you are a simulation (an illusion), saying the "I think therefore I am" by a fictional character is still a fictional statement.
BAZINGA
We'll easily make the required amount of pages for Joseph to win.
We don't even have to post on topic, as there is no way to know if anyone is reading at all!
This forum isn't real . You are all part of my dream about posting in a atheist forum. Sorry reality is harsh.
Leo isn't real. Ignore him.
Quote from: stromboli on April 16, 2014, 03:48:06 PM
Leo isn't real. Ignore him.
Wait a minute. You guys aren't real because you are part of my dream. You are telling me that I'm also part of someone's dream? This is getting confusing. :think: :think:
Weird... whenever I come to this thread, I feel a certain chill over my shoulders... must ghosts...
No, wait... Leo is imaginary and not of the material world.....which means he's real!
Bump. Let's see......31-18=13 Hell, don't stop now!
Quote from: leo on April 16, 2014, 03:00:55 PM
This forum isn't real . You are all part of my dream about posting in a atheist forum. Sorry reality is harsh.
Yes, reality can be harsh, but I'm good with that. Beats the hell out of believing in fairy tales and having reality kick your ass down the road because you can't accept it.
I would hate to see casper dismissed so soon, even though this thread is a wishy washy wasteland. Hopefully he will enter some other conversations and we can move along to his other "entertaining" thoughts. But yeah, this thread is about to die.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:03:36 AM
You can't prove matter, that's too hard for you but readily, without any proof, you assert: MIND IS IMMATERIAL...
I shall consider the alternative:
Mind is material. It therefore exists independent of mind. It has a weight and a mass that is measurable.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 16, 2014, 05:41:16 AM
This is demonstrably false. You've made an error here.
Demonstrably false means it has been demonstrated. Demonstrate away. Or point to the demonstration.
I honestly was not aware that you guys thought minds were material objects. This is interesting to me, but consistent with Materialism, so at least you are staying consistent.
Quote from: sasuke on April 16, 2014, 09:52:21 AM
I wasn't talking about accepting materialism. You think that solipsism is a good view to adopt. I'm just encouraging you to explore and experiment with that idea. Have you tried flying to work today, like Superman?
Materialism being false does not mean that suddenly the laws of physics no longer apply. "Either materialism or true, or we can fly." Is a False Dichotomy.
Quote from: Berati on April 16, 2014, 08:54:21 AM
OK, I think therefore I am
Cool. We agree on the starting point.
QuoteMajor unproven assumption on your part.
You seem to be saying that "mind" is equal to "objective material object" but this makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps the use of the word "mind" is throwing people. When I say "Mind exists" what I really am saying is "Awareness exists." I know this because I am aware and cannot doubt that fact. Awareness itself is not a physical object one can touch feel hear see smell or taste. It cannot be weighed or measured or even detected in any way. It has all of the qualities of being immaterial and none of the qualities of being a material object.
QuoteI don't think so. Energy also exists and can be converted into matter and I'm pretty sure all your opponents here agree.
If you are claiming that "energy" is immaterial and coexists with "matter", then you are a dualist not a Materialist. If you are saying that "energy" is not material, then you are not a Materialist, because you are admitting the existence of something immaterial. So what does it matter if e= mc^2 if there are just two different states of Material? This changes nothing.
QuoteObservations are not claims. If you doubt what everyone including yourself observes.. then you carry the burden of proof. I can't stress this enough and you keep avoiding it. YOU have the burden of proof regardless of how much you try to dodge it.
Is there anyone left who doubts E=mc2?
I do not doubt that we have perceptions. I doubt that we perceive the world directly and can conclusively prove that we are perceiving an objective material reality. I doubt this based on The Veil of Perception Problem, the fact that what we perceive is only a representation of an external reality. Our perceptions are produced by interpreting information which could easily be produced by Nick Bostrom's Simulated Universe.
I have no reason to assume Materialism is true. You have provided no valid reason beyond "Naive Realism" which I reject based on current scientific experimentation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
QuoteNo naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
QuoteMost working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation....Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.
I have absolutely no reason to accept your world view. The only logical conclusion I can come to that is consistent with what I can justify as existing philosophically and that is consistent with current scientific experimentation is that Materialism is False, Substance Dualism is False, and Idealism entails.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:52:27 AM
Materialism being false does not mean that suddenly the laws of physics no longer apply. That is a false dichotomy. "Either materialism or true, or we can fly."
You're the one who thinks that solipsism is a good starting point. I'm not telling you to adopt materialism at all. As a matter of fact, I want you to accept that we could never truly know anything and put that to the test. Dive deeply into that solipsistic bullshit of yours and ignore that I ever said anything to you, after all, I could be just a figment of your imagination. You should entertain all possibilities as equally likely. I am not talking about materialism at all. You keep pretending otherwise doesn't make it so, but then again, you never really know.
Quote from: Berati on April 16, 2014, 01:50:31 PM
Fine, we all agree you can start with I think therefore I am.
Cool. Im happy to hear that.
QuoteAbsolutely wrong! While it is valid to doubt existence, to conclude non existence is illogical at this point.
Immaterial is only equal to non-existence if you are a Materialist. Experience is real. Experience obviously exists. But experience itself, on it's own, is not Material. Experience is immaterial.
QuoteI will point out that while you may say this, you behave differently from your stated belief. You have been asked several times to jump out of a building to show faith in your claim that the world is not real. You don't because it's not logical to gamble your very existence on an unprovable philosophical position. So you take the only logical step available. You don't jump.
If I were a brain in a vat experiencing a simulated universe, I definitely wouldn't jump of any buildings to "show faith" in this. :rotflmao: Pain is still a very real experience, even to a brain in a vat. To say that if "If materialism is false, then jumping out of a building wont hurt" is a false dichotomy you are setting up. If the simulation is a consistent one with rigid rules such as our laws of physics, jumping out of the building will result in my death within the simulation, meaning my existence within the simulated universe is no longer consistent with it's rule set. So I don't get to play anymore.
Jumping out of a building has the exact same result whether I am living in an objective material universe or I am living in Nick Bostrom's Simulated Universe, therefore the fact that I do jump out of building to prove my point is no proof that I actually am a Materialist in disguise.
QuoteThe only way you or anyone else can (and does) proceed logically from "I think therefore I am" is "I feel therefore I'm real"
Even if it's an assumption it is the only logical assumption you can make.
THANK YOU BABY JESUS!!! ding ding ding ding ding!! :new_birthday:
You are the first to finally admit that it is an assumption! Thank you very much for your intellectual honesty, it is truly commendable considering the circumstances!
"i feel therefore it's real" yes, the experience is absolutely real. This catchy phrase however does not justify materialism in any way.
The problem is of course that it is not the only logical assumption you can make. If I have not yet made that clear I don't know what to tell you. Clearly there are other options. Maybe you prefer this assumption over the other assumptions, but the cold hard fact is, an assumption is an assumption.
QuoteHere is an example:
You awake at the edge of cliff with no knowledge of how you got there. You know you exist because you can think. You know nothing else for sure. What is your next logical step? If you said to assume nothing is real (solipsism) and jump off the cliff you are wrong, yet this is the argument you are making.
I don't assume that nothing is real. I know that I am real. I know that experience is real. I know that information is real. (all of which are immaterial) Therefore, I do not jump off the cliff. The experience will be real regardless.
QuoteIf you awake at the edge of the cliff with another person (who may be an illusion) and you want to convince that person to jump over the cliff with you... You have the burden of proof to convince that other person that everything you are both feeling and observing is an illusion.
Let's say me and this person are existing in "the matrix" and we both know it. We know that to assume that we exist in a Material Objective Universe would be incorrect. We both know that we are actually experiencing an "illusion" created by the information being sent to our consciousnesses through the matrix, and guess what....
I STILL COULD NOT CONVINCE HIM TO JUMP!! And I wouldn't try, because I wouldn't jump either! This false dichotomy you guys are setting up is ridiculous. If Materialism is false, that does not automatically mean that we exist in wacky crazy fun wonderland where we can just jump off of cliffs and buildings and the laws and rules of reality that we have always experienced suddenly seise to do what they do.
When a character jumps off a cliff in Skyrim, it dies. Is this proof that skyrim is an objective material universe?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 02:08:40 PM
BTW, the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is no proof of existence simply because if you are a simulation (an illusion), saying the "I think therefore I am" by a fictional character is still a fictional statement.
BAZINGA
Very strange logic, a demonstration that you are not following the conversation very well.
If I am existing in a simulation, that means everything I see hear taste smell and touch is virtual. But I still know that "I" am experiencing all of these sensations. I cannot doubt that.
If I am in a dream, that means that everything I see hear taste smell and touch are mental constructs. But I still know that "I am having the experience" I cannot doubt this. The act of doubting is itself a demonstration that exist.
No matter what i am aware of, whether it is an illusion or not. If I am aware at all, I know that I exist, and am unable to doubt that fact.
(http://i.imgur.com/zGc7aP0.jpg)
Quote from: leo on April 16, 2014, 03:52:44 PM
Wait a minute. You guys aren't real because you are part of my dream. You are telling me that I'm also part of someone's dream? This is getting confusing. :think: :think:
We need to go deeper!
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:50:53 AM
Demonstrably false means it has been demonstrated. Demonstrate away. Or point to the demonstration.
I honestly was not aware that you guys thought minds were material objects. This is interesting to me, but consistent with Materialism, so at least you are staying consistent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQLypwgqefc
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:46:28 AM
I shall consider the alternative:
Mind Brain, in which all mind activities occurred, is material. It therefore exists independent of mind. It has a weight and a mass that is measurable.
FIFY
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:46:40 AM
Very strange logic, a demonstration that you are not following the conversation very well.
If I am existing in a simulation, that means everything I see hear taste smell and touch is virtual.
You have no way of knowing it is virtual. So how can you make that assertion???
QuoteBut I still know that "I" am experiencing all of these sensations. I cannot doubt that.
You can have Superman says in a DC comic book: "I think therefore I am". That doesn't mean Superman really exist.
QuoteIf I am in a dream, that means that everything I see hear taste smell and touch are mental constructs. But I still know that "I am having the experience" I cannot doubt this. The act of doubting is itself a demonstration that exist.
No you don't. It's only once you step out of your dream state that you can make that assertion: that you know the difference between being in a wake state or in a dream state.
QuoteNo matter what i am aware of, whether it is an illusion or not. If I am aware at all, I know that I exist, and am unable to doubt that fact.
But you still won't know if your existence is an illusion or not. You might believe that you exist, but you can't prove it.
Ok, just one final attempt to knock some sense into you, in case you are genuinly not pulling our leg:
You see the world around you, correct? You can feel it, touch it, smell it. Every other person (save people with various handicaps) can do the same. I'm not making the claim that you are not dreaming, and that we aren't all figments of your imagination (though I do think(therefor I am), so from my point of view, if you are right, you don't exist) - but, which is more likely? You experience a reality - and you claim that everything we feel and see is a lie. Well, then you need to demonstrate it, because clearly, the acceptance of absolutely everything we can verify around us with every tool we know appears to be the only logical default position.
I'm certainly not 100.00000% sure this is right, but nothing implies otherwise (and if we were part of a simulation that wouldn't change a thing, it would be no different from our universe existing within a different reality outside it. It would only give us more information).
But your position is pro-god, so let's shut up about what's provable, and what's fucking logical.
On the one hand we have never observed any minds directly controlling this reality. We have never observed minds working without a body. And everything we observe appear to be material.
Your god however has never been observed and nothing has ever implied it's existence.
Also, if you genuinely are a solipsist: WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH FICTIONAL PEOPLE? WHY ARE YOU INTERACTING WITH US? Seriously, what the fuck is the point?
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:50:53 AM
Demonstrably false means it has been demonstrated. Demonstrate away. Or point to the demonstration.
I honestly was not aware that you guys thought minds were material objects. This is interesting to me, but consistent with Materialism, so at least you are staying consistent.
Head injuries that cause the sufferer to act differently and think differently are well documented. As are the effects of hormones and chemicals on the thinking process. If your mind were immaterial, then it wouldn't be affected if I were to inject you with one ampoule of adrenaline.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 01:55:44 AM
Sooo....
I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi. :flowers:
Hi. I agree that you believe God exists.
If the mind doesn't rely on the brain then why do we lose certain faculties when we damage parts of our brain? Why do we even need a brain? Why don't we have a disembodied mind which floats around our physical body?
To say that everything beyond your personal experience is ultimately not provable may be true in the philosophical sense, but you have to admit that the universal commonality of aspects of existence render them as real. The fact that we from different countries can communicate with shared experience is evidence that information is real. Mind has to process information. Mind receives information from my mind. Therefore mind and information by common understanding have to be understood experientially as real.
You have completely sidestepped the aspect of testing. You also separate science from materialism, as two separate things. Materialism is a philosophy; science is not a philosophy but a method quantifying what we experience. If we universally agree in the periodic table, then for all intents and purposes we can agree it is real. If we can agree gravity is real, the physical, measurable aspects of the universe by that same logic can be assumed as real. If we don't have the common understanding that something is real, then we could not communicate or interact in any way.
Solipsism is self refuting . If the brain doing the experiencing exists then reality exists in some form . Given that the
most parsimonious explanation is that the reality we experience ( with due reference to the limitations of the senses )
is the real reality because if one brain exists then a barrier to other brains existing is required and this constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities . Occam's Razor does the rest
Regardless of your argument, there is still a universal understanding of what we observe experientially. There is a vast body of agreed upon information that for all intents and purposes we have to agree upon as real in some form; were it not, there would be no commonality of understanding, no periodic table, no written language, no formal body of inquiry and so on.
And further, Solipsism by itself cannot refute the physical aspects of the universe. We are back to testing. We cannot describe something as a solid unless we universally understand the concept of solid. In order for something to be observed as solid and universally understood, it has to meet the criteria we ascribe to "solid." Those criteria by themselves are arrived at by common, universal understanding.
We cannot describe a physical object as flat, black, heavy or square without a commonality of understanding and a shared, universally understood meaning of those terms. regardless of whether your observation starts, i.e. mind, without an agreed upon reality, that meets universally understood criteria. If your mind can assume these things as understandable- remember, they originated outside your mind- then by good old Occam's Razor we can therefore assume that all aspects of reality that are quantifiable and universally understood by overwhelming logic as real.
By that same shared experience we cannot, using the same commonly understood measures of testing, test that which is outside of the framework that we can quantify and measure. Guess what? We can't test, measure or prove the existence of something that is outside of what we perceive as nature, i.e. the supernatural-god. So any statement you make that "proves god" by any measure we can apply is invalid.
Is there a solipsist trick or course I can take to fool myself into having more imaginary money?
I would be interested in that.
Bishop Berkeley said that it takes a mind to create, and we create the world around us from information from it. And he said the information is from the mind of God providing it. I can't see what is wrong with his explanation accept it is an infinite regress, because who creates the mind of God. The whole concept of God or gods is obviously created in our mind and just complicates everything to the point it is absurd. "Things should be simple (Occam's Razor), but not too simple." Einstein.
I Think therefore I am is not logical because of who is thinking. We are physical first, we think, therefore we think we are is an illusion. We are an emerging property from the body that is consciousness, and nothing more. If we are not conscious we only exist physically. If we were not a physical being, a bump on the head, or a chemical couldn't affect us. Emerging properties were first recognized by biologists, and has still not infiltrated the other sciences like it should. Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:50:53 AM
Demonstrably false means it has been demonstrated. Demonstrate away. Or point to the demonstration.
Debating with a fundy christian is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 17, 2014, 06:23:29 AM
You can have Superman says in a DC comic book: "I think therefore I am". That doesn't mean Superman really exist.
You are absolutely right. Just because you perceive a character that says he exists, that does not prove to you that you he exists. But because you are perceiving, you know that you exist. The fact that you are aware of anything at all, is proof that you exist.
QuoteBut you still won't know if your existence is an illusion or not. You might believe that you exist, but you can't prove it.
Incorrect. You are aware, therefore you exist. The fact that you are having experiences, whether the experiences are illusions or not, is proof that you exist. You cannot doubt your own existence. As soon as you say "I doubt that I exist." the fact that you have that capability itself is proof that you exist.
Things that do no exist cannot "doubt" at all. Things that do not exist cannot have "any" experiences at all, dreams illusions material or other wise. The fact that are aware and having experiences is proof that you exist.
Now... let me add here that this only is proof
to you, not anyone else. You cannot prove to me that you exist, and I cannot prove to you that I exist.
You can prove to yourself that you exist because you are aware of your own experience, but you cannot provide proof to anyone else that you exist, because you cannot prove that you are aware and having experiences to anyone but yourself.
Therefore, I can prove that I exist to myself, but I cannot then hope to prove to anyone else that I exist. To everyone else, I am only information being processed by their consciousness. You can doubt that I exist, because I can only communicate to you through your perceptions, and you can always doubt your perceptions.
But what you do have proof of, is that YOU exist. And you cannot doubt this fact no matter how hard you try.
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 17, 2014, 07:15:24 AM
Ok, just one final attempt to knock some sense into you, in case you are genuinly not pulling our leg:
I'm not pulling your leg, so please do enlighten me. That is why I am here.
QuoteYou see the world around you, correct?
Correct.
QuoteYou can feel it, touch it, smell it.
Correct.
QuoteEvery other person (save people with various handicaps) can do the same.
This is what they tell me, yes.
QuoteYou experience a reality - and you claim that everything we feel and see is a lie. Well, then you need to demonstrate it, because clearly, the acceptance of absolutely everything we can verify around us with every tool we know appears to be the only logical default position.
I do not claim that everything we perceive is "a lie". I simply deny the claim that what we perceive is "Objectively Material". I do not perceive the outside world directly, so I cannot know this. I claim that everything we see and feel is real, I just believe it is fundamentally immaterial rather than material.
To claim "It seems material to me, therefore it definitely is material," does not seem like a very sound argument.
QuoteI'm certainly not 100.00000% sure this is right, but nothing implies otherwise (and if we were part of a simulation that wouldn't change a thing, it would be no different from our universe existing within a different reality outside it. It would only give us more information).
I am glad that you admit that you cannot be sure of Materialism. The reason for this uncertainty is of course the complete lack of evidence to support it and also that Materialism is an assumption rather than a conclusion.
You say that "if we are part of a simulation that wouldn't change a thing," but it obviously would. It would mean that the reality we perceive is not an objectively material universe. No one would be qualified to speak on whatever is running the simulation because it would be outside of our ability to know. Anything about that would be pure conjecture.
You say, "nothing implies otherwise," but I disagree. Here are two very concrete things that imply otherwise:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
QuoteOn the one hand we have never observed any minds directly controlling this reality. We have never observed minds working without a body. And everything we observe appear to be material.
On the one hand, you know with absolute certainty that your mind exists, and cannot doubt it. But on the other hand, you have no proof, no evidence, and justification for Materialism other than "it appears that way". You can doubt the assumption that we live in a Material Objective Universe in a million different ways but you cannot doubt that mind exists no matter how hard you try because you are directly aware of your own.
But despite all of this, because you have never seen a brainless mind preserved in a bottle of fermaldehyde, you seem to have decided to cling to the assumption that you exist in a Material Objective Universe. Even in light of scientific evidence that suggests otherwise.
QuoteAlso, if you genuinely are a solipsist: WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH FICTIONAL PEOPLE? WHY ARE YOU INTERACTING WITH US? Seriously, what the fuck is the point?
Because I am not a solipsist and I never said I was, that's why. I am a
Monistic Idealist. Get it right.
You are telling me to "just believe the world is how you perceive it", but there is scientific proof that shows that the world is not how we perceive it. There is absolutely no proof that the world we perceive is an actual objective material universe that exists independent of observation and there are plenty of other explanations that describe our perceptions just well and do not contradict the findings of current quantum experimentation.
If the only argument is "it seems that way so just believe it is that way", then I am simply not convinced. Not in light of the evidence that contradicts your assumption and your compete and utter inability to provide even a shred of evidence to support it.
Quote from: stromboli on April 17, 2014, 12:16:45 PM
To say that everything beyond your personal experience is ultimately not provable may be true in the philosophical sense, but you have to admit that the universal commonality of aspects of existence render them as real.
Well stromboli, as I have said repeatedly now: I am not contesting whether or not our experiences are "real." So yes, of course they are real! That was never a point of debate but you keep trying to make it one. What I am debating is whether or not these "real experiences" are the result of an objective material universe.
Shared experience does not prove that materialism is true any more than massively multiplayer online video games are proved to be Material Universes because the players have shared experiences. No more than people in the matrix are proved to actually be in an objective material universe just because they are having a shared experience. Are you even reading my responses? I feel like ive repeated this about twenty times now....
SHARED EXPERIENCE DOES NOT PROVE MATERIALISM IS TRUEQuoteThe fact that we from different countries can communicate with shared experience is evidence that information is real. Mind has to process information. Mind receives information from my mind. Therefore mind and information by common understanding have to be understood experientially as real.
Well god damn I actually agree with an entire paragraph that you produced. Absolutely. Yes. All of the above is true.
QuoteYou have completely sidestepped the aspect of testing.
A character who is living in a simulated universe like a character in skyrim, is therefore limited to the tools within that simulation to test it. Simulated tools testing the simulation. But this does not mean that just because he is limited in this way he could never discover that he exists in a simulation rather than a material objective universe. For instance he could notice that trees pop into existence out of no where whenever he walks in an open field. They seem to only be rendered when an observer is present to observe them. This observation, without the need to exit the simulation and test from the outside as you are suggesting, would be sufficient reason to doubt that he exists in a material universe.
I have explained this to you several times now. There are things we can do to test whether or not we exist in a material objective universe, and we are currently running those tests, and here are just two with excerpts from the abstracts:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs... According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality... Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
" The counterintuitive features of quantum physics challenge many common-sense assumptions... No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."Those are not just quotes, they are abstracts from peer reviewed scientific experiments that directly contradict your assumptions about reality.
QuoteIf we universally agree in the periodic table, then for all intents and purposes we can agree it is real. If we can agree gravity is real, the physical, measurable aspects of the universe by that same logic can be assumed as real. If we don't have the common understanding that something is real, then we could not communicate or interact in any way.
We both agree that experience is real. This was never a point of debate. What we disagree about is whether we are experiencing an objective material reality as Naive Realism suggests, or if the reality we experience is fundamentally immaterial.
QuoteSolipsism is self refuting.
Well I'm not a Solipsist so what does that matter?
QuoteIf the brain doing the experiencing exists then reality exists in some form . Given that the
most parsimonious explanation is that the reality we experience ( with due reference to the limitations of the senses )
is the real reality because if one brain exists then a barrier to other brains existing is required and this constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities . Occam's Razor does the rest
You'd have to prove that brains are objectively material, which I welcome you to attempt.
QuoteRegardless of your argument, there is still a universal understanding of what we observe experientially. There is a vast body of agreed upon information that for all intents and purposes we have to agree upon as real in some form; were it not, there would be no commonality of understanding, no periodic table, no written language, no formal body of inquiry and so on.
Keep in mind I am not arguing whether or not our experiences are "real in some form" of course they are real! I am simply unconvinced that what we are experiencing is the result of an Objective Material Universe.
Your argument comes down to "it seems that way and most everybody agrees". Not a good argument. I remain unconvinced.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on April 17, 2014, 02:37:00 PM
Debating with a fundy christian is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game.
Couldn't agree more, which is why I don't debate fundy Christians any more.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 11:29:13 PM
If the only argument is "it seems that way so just believe it is that way", then I am simply not convinced. Not in light of the evidence that contradicts your assumption and your compete and utter inability to provide even a shred of evidence to support it.
I never said such. I never said you should believe the world is material. I said it's the natural default position.
You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not.
As for admitting I can't be "certain of materialism" - This makes me think you are a troll. It's just such an incredibly stupid thing to say. No one is saying we are 100.0000% certain of materialism. Just as we're not saying we are 100.0000% certain that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Seriously, it could! But nothing implies it does yet, so it's crazy to believe in it. Equally nothing implies the world is immaterial, so it's crazy believing it. Your examples are asinine.
You also dodged everything I've said. So what if I have a mind? Have you seen a mind without a body, that works on it's own? Does anything imply this exist? A human mind exists solely by courtesy of our brain, and is created by processes we understand more and more of. It cannot exist without the brain. No mind has ever been showed to control this universe, while cause and effect has. So, AGAIN - and please be serious if you are for real - Give evidence for your crazy outlandish claim.
Trying to knock a co-experienced reality needs evidence, not the other way around. You won't get anywhere here - and trying to is so oblivious and crazy that you will not be seen as anything but a troll.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 12:02:16 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs... According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality... Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
" The counterintuitive features of quantum physics challenge many common-sense assumptions... No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Those are not just quotes, they are abstracts from peer reviewed scientific experiments that directly contradict your assumptions about reality.
Actually, papers on that particular archive are NOT peer reviewed. The arxiv.org archive is for preprints.
The other thing is that you are falling into the old trap of thinking that when a physicist says "observer" in a physical context, that he means a
person. He does not. What he means by an observer is "a physical apparatus that is able to collect sufficient data about a phenomenon." This confusion is one of the most persistent bugbears of physical science because it gives license to people like you who misunderstand "observer" as a person looking at the expermient and somehow influencing the outcome with the force of his thoughts, and thus materialism is dead. Sorry, but to a physicist, the observer effect does not indicate any such woo. What he understands is that observation itself is a
physical interaction with the phenomenon observed. As such, the notion that the fact that you are observing different aspects of a phenomenon changes the outcome of an experiment shouldn't be surprising, because to change the way you observe the experiment is to change the experiment.
It's counterintuitive and defies common sense because on the macroscale the probes we use to observe are so puny compared to what we are observing that they do not significantly affect the object in question, and any perturbations are drowned out by thermal noise. But in the quantum realm, using probes that are comparable in energy to the phenomenon you are observing is unavoidable â€" the interaction of observation is as significant as any other interaction in the experiment.
There is nothing in the abstracts you quoted that that undermine materialism. The only thing you have exposed is your ignorance about the subject. These are physical papers, so the phrase "independent of observation" has to be understood within that physical context, and that phrase differs in significant ways to the layman's understanding of that phrase.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 10:46:44 PM
You are absolutely right. Just because you perceive a character that says he exists, that does not prove to you that you he exists. But because you are perceiving, you know that you exist. The fact that you are aware of anything at all, is proof that you exist.
Incorrect. You are aware, therefore you exist. The fact that you are having experiences, whether the experiences are illusions or not, is proof that you exist. You cannot doubt your own existence. As soon as you say "I doubt that I exist." the fact that you have that capability itself is proof that you exist.
Things that do no exist cannot "doubt" at all. Things that do not exist cannot have "any" experiences at all, dreams illusions material or other wise. The fact that are aware and having experiences is proof that you exist.
Now... let me add here that this only is proof to you, not anyone else. You cannot prove to me that you exist, and I cannot prove to you that I exist.
You can prove to yourself that you exist because you are aware of your own experience, but you cannot provide proof to anyone else that you exist, because you cannot prove that you are aware and having experiences to anyone but yourself.
Therefore, I can prove that I exist to myself, but I cannot then hope to prove to anyone else that I exist. To everyone else, I am only information being processed by their consciousness. You can doubt that I exist, because I can only communicate to you through your perceptions, and you can always doubt your perceptions.
But what you do have proof of, is that YOU exist. And you cannot doubt this fact no matter how hard you try.
You missed the boat. I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about, "how do you know", which a totally different matter. I could be conscious, living in a totally dark room. I have no way of knowing what's happening. Am I in a prison? Am I in a rocketship travelling from star to star? Am I alive? and so on. I am conscious, but I know zilch. So when you make the assertion, " I have proof that I exist" that is a belief which is unproven.
The difference in my scenario with what we experience is that in our daily experience we can see and go outside the dark room, and investigate what's out there. We see trees, cats, tables, etc. and we can ask, are these things made up of the same stuff as I am made of? Further investigation reveals we are all made of the same stuff which we can label matter/energy. But now you ask, what if we are in a simulation? Then we are back to the intial scenario. Unless we can move outside that simulation, we have no way of knowing what's out there. If there is an immaterial world, it is beyond our investigative abilities and we are wasting our time speculating about it.
Lol! This is comical. I've got a degree in English Lit with mold on the edges and I understand science better than this guy. 20 pages. We'll get there yet. :biggrin:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 16, 2014, 05:03:36 AM
You can't prove matter, that's too hard for you but readily, without any proof, you assert: MIND IS IMMATERIAL...
Maybe he's the ghost of George Berkeley.
(It's sad one of the best physics departments in the nation is at a university named for a nincompoop who believed matter is an illusion. He also claimed that calculus - calculus for chrissake - was an unjustified leap of faith. God on the other hand...)
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I concede the point at the front that "Atheism does not equal Materialism" however it is my contention that in the great majority of cases, it is materialism which leads to the conclusion of Atheism. The two seem to go hand in hand. A Nihilist who believes absolutely nothing about anything, and is also an Atheist, obviously is not a Materialist, but also is obviously in no position to debate against. One cannot debate against someone who has absolutely no position whatsoever. As I have seen Atheists eager to debate evolution and Big Bang Theory, this leads me to believe that Atheists do have positive positions that they are willing and able to defend, and there must exist at least a few Atheists who are also Materialists.
This is no more significant than the realization that theists have positive positions. The point you're missing is that you need more to go on than a person's mere atheism or mere theism to infer their positions on different matters. You are a theist, and the only view that you can not hold based on just that is that no sort of god or God exists. Not to mention the sampling issue of deriving your opinions on atheists from those who frequent English-speaking discussion boards on the internet.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
And it is these Atheists I wish to debate.
Why not just specify materialists, then? Would you be this vague if you were looking for Muslims to debate?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
P.S. I am well aware that all being an Atheist means is that you lack a belief in any god and nothing more. I fully accept that. But there are underlying reasons that you have come to such a belief, and if that reason is Materialism, I have a problem with that. If it is not Materialism, I'm interested in what your alternatives to Materialism are as an Atheist.
I've not knowingly ever met a person who was religious, became a materialist, and then became an atheist. And I know hundreds of atheists personally. Growing skepticism of supernatural claims is something I see occasionally, but that seems to lead to methodological naturalism rather than materialism, and the atheism usually precedes that conclusion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:19:37 PM
It seems most of you are still confused about what I mean by "God", even after I have provided a definition. Admittedly the definition I provided does require a little bit of deep thought to see what exactly is being said, so because of this I will further expound upon what I believe "God" to be like.
Your description was a series of vague phrases piled on top of each other, so thanks for clarifying.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I don't believe that God is something separate from what we are. I believe that ultimately, there exists only one thing, and that thing is God, and everything, including us, are parts of it. I believe that the ultimate reality, and the ground of all being, is Mind, and I believe that source of all Mind, is God, which I have defined as "Infinite Mind."
So we're all figments of God's imagination? That's at least coherent. How do you know this?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
Let me now point out that in my world view it is not so much important that "God exists" nor that people "believe in God" as it is that the actual nature of reality is such that this conception of God unfolds out of it. Of course if materialism is true than this conception of God is just as fallacious and fictitious as any other. But if Materialism is false, then that changes the whole conversation entirely. So for me, I am much more interested in discovering the true nature of reality, than I am in converting people into Theists.
Seems like a good start would be proving materialism false, then.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
Perhaps now I have shed sufficient light onto what my conception of "God" is, and I can begin the actual work of debating the evidence.
I can work with this definition.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 05:46:56 PM
You seem to have a list of pre-debunked labels in your arsenal, and if you wish to just slap the closest label that fits onto what I am arguing for in order to dismiss it, then you are just straw-manning my argument instead of addressing it directly.
At this point, you had not yet made an argument to address. I'm cotinuing to read the thread, I hope this isn't a pattern.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:51:25 PM
I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?]
I don't...which is why I'm a methodological naturalist rather than a materialist. It's possible that we believe in a universe that's not materialist, but in which we are currently unable to prove that it's not materialist; or a universe that actually materialist.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.
Have we taken the smallest step to establishing that ANYONE is an atheist because of their materialism? I know we have at least one self-proclaimed materialist around, maybe he or she can shed some light on this.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
The bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)
That's an observation, not an assumption. Everything we observe appears to be material. It's an unsupported assumption that the case is actually otherwise.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
Materialism is not ultimately true.
How do you know that?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.
Until you establish that materialism is a cause of atheism rather than a result of it, this is just a strawman.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 05:52:16 PM
Proof for this assertion?
I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position, which you being an Atheist should be very familiar with. Whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.
This is how you express skepticism: 'I am skeptical that materialism is the ultimate reality'. This is how you make an assertion: 'Materialism is not the ultimate reality'. This is also an assertion: There is no God. When you catch an atheist making that claim, it's cricket to ask him or her to back it up.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I couldn't agree more! There is no good reason to believe in Materialism, and yet most Atheists do, and then feel intellectual superior to Theists who believe in a God for no good reason. Insanity! Delusional indeed! :wink2:
'Most atheists do' is an example of an assertion you should be able to back up if you're going to make it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
And as for why Atheists can demand proof from Theists all day everyday and then when asked for proof of their own world view think that they are somehow exempt from the Burden of Proof, also Special Pleading, also Logical Fallacy.
I bet the atheists who do that are cautious about what they assert. You should try that.
QuoteYou are the first to finally admit that it is an assumption! Thank you very much for your intellectual honesty, it is truly commendable considering the circumstances!
This is wrong. The other posters have all pretty much said that no one can be 100.000% certain about anything. This however, is no excuse for you to insert whatever crazy belief you have. Theists constantly try to capitalize on the fact that science never claims 100% certainty to insert their own beliefs as being on a 50/50 par with science... you are trying to pull the same trick with immaterialism and it's not working.
Quote"i feel therefore it's real" yes, the experience is absolutely real. This catchy phrase however does not justify materialism in any way.
The problem is of course that it is not the only logical assumption you can make.
THANK YOU BABY JESUS!!! ding ding ding ding ding!! :new_birthday:
When referring to "I think therefore I am" you said " From there my only real next logical move is solipsism" and now you admit that you were wrong and that there are other logical assumptions. (In fact more logical than solipsism)
Materialism is in fact far far more logical than immaterialism. Why? La Dolce Vita already pointed this out to you as follows:
QuoteYou do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not.
Let me repeat what I've proven and that you continue to deny in vain... You have the burden of proof. Just accept it and move on.
QuoteI don't assume that nothing is real. I know that I am real. I know that experience is real. I know that information is real. (all of which are immaterial) Therefore, I do not jump off the cliff. The experience will be real regardless.
Let's say me and this person are existing in "the matrix" and we both know it. We know that to assume that we exist in a Material Objective Universe would be incorrect. We both know that we are actually experiencing an "illusion" created by the information being sent to our consciousnesses through the matrix, and guess what....
I STILL COULD NOT CONVINCE HIM TO JUMP!!
And I wouldn't try, because I wouldn't jump either! This false dichotomy you guys are setting up is ridiculous. If Materialism is false, that does not automatically mean that we exist in wacky crazy fun wonderland where we can just jump off of cliffs and buildings and the laws and rules of reality that we have always experienced suddenly seise to do what they do.
And now you have now retreated so far from your belief that you admit that
no matter what, you will behave and treat the world around you exactly as if it were all materially real.
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? If so, then why introduce a completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, immaterial world that you now admit is incapable of changing anything about the way you live.
Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 10:53:16 PM
I am not saying "Prove that God doesn't exist." because I understand that would be silly. What I am saying is "Prove that Materialism is true." Because I understand that what would make God an impossibility in the mind of an Atheist would be if Materialism were true. You are an Atheist because you have a world view that is not compatible with the existence of God, I am challenging your world view, which is Materialism, the positive assertion about reality that would negate the possibility of any kind of God.
The problem is the difficulty of finding an atheist who asserts that, despite your perception that the majority of atheists are materialists. Maybe your perception is incorrect? My guess is that you've mistaken methodological naturalism for materialism in many of the atheists you've conversed with.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I, on the other hand, am not accepting the assertion that we live in a material objective reality. I am remaining skeptical about your assertion of Materialism, and demanding proof of that at the onset. Which you have yet to attempt in any way.
Probably because the person you're talking to is not a materialist.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
If Materialism is true, in your own words that means that "all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things". Consciousness is non-physical, therefore consciousness cannot exist if materialism is true.
If materialism is true, consciousness is fundamentally physical. One way to easily prove materialism false would be to demonstrate a disembodied consciousness that does not rely on matter or energy as a substrate.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
The closest you've come to attempting to provide anything resembling evidence or proof for your positive claim about reality was:
If you cannot provide any proof for your world view, what you can at least do is admit that it is an unsupported assumption.
Whose positive claim about reality?
Quote from: Casparov on April 12, 2014, 01:53:40 AM
I propose that to have a position about the existence of God (meaning to not be an agnostic), is to have a concern and a philosophy about what may or may not be the root cause of our collected experience called existence. Correct me if I am wrong, but you truly had no concern, you'd be an Agnostic Nihilist instead of an Atheist Nihilist.
I know you know that atheists can be agnostic. Moral Nihilist's concern can be easily summarized: a desire not to have inadequately justified beliefs. No committment to materialism required.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
Yes but let's not forget these facts:
1) Scientific knowledge has not been a steady build, progress has instead been made through paradigm shifts.
Sure.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
2) It used to be scientific suicide to believe the earth was not flat, and then that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and then that atoms actually existed, and then that Newtonian Physics was false, and now that Materialism is false.
This simply isn't true. It was literally RELIGIOUS suicide to contend with the Church on these matters. Scientists have a good record of not putting people to the torch for having unorthodox views. What's 'scientific suicide'? Loss of tenure or respect? Newtonian physics is not false, it merely doesn't apply to all circumstances. Finding that the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't mean that the idea that it is round was false, merely that it wasn't accurate as it could be, while still being MUCH more accurate than the flat earth notion (which is still not completely false from a local point of view).
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I believe you are right but only if you are referring to specific religious dogmatisms and limited conceptions of God. Surely we will grow out of these superstitious and fearful clingings to religion. But I do not believe spirituality itself is going anywhere. The only conceivable scenerio in which all spirituality and belief in afterlife and God go entirely extinct is the scenerio in which Materialism triumphs as the only possible solution, in which case all of those things would be impossible. That is precisely why I am so interested in discovering at least some tiny sliver of proof or at least one piece of evidence for this positive assertion about reality, as it's truth would indeed extinguish my own belief.
Do you really think it's an honest search for truth to condition giving up your faith on proof of something you know can't be proven either way?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I, like anyone else, do not wish to be wandering around with a world view that is ultimately false.
The method most of us have chosen to accomplish that is to withold belief from propositions that haven't been adequately supported. What's your method?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I am very willing to provide evidence for my own beliefs about the nature of reality, but I am intentionally holding out until after it becomes painfully clear that Materialists are not willing to provide even a sliver of evidence for theirs.
Do you have any conception of how many people have promised us evidence once they're satisfied some arbitrary condition has been met? Guess how many have delivered. The only evidence for materialism is that everything observable is material on every level that can be verifiably experienced. What other evidence could there be?
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 12:22:34 AM
Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?
Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?
Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?
If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....
If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.
One of these things is not like the others. The evidence for the material world is literally the sum of all evidence it is possible to have for anything. You can legitimately question whether it actually refers to anything real. You can't legitimately reject it as 'not evidence at all'. Our experience of a material world that others can confirm experiencing too is sufficient justification for accepting it as (approximately) real, as all alternative possibilities not only lack evidence entirely, they make the very idea of evidence useless.
Mister Agenda,
You've inspired me to re-skim the entire conversation.
And I think I'm right in concluding from reading all of those entries that OP is selectively blind to what we type.
La Dolce Vita and some others seem inclined to think him a troll. That may very well be. (I am not convinced of that.) But even if he's not, I fear he will not understand what it is exactly we are arguing.
Many of us have been presenting the same points but under different terms and different emphasis', but basically the same points. One may call their point of view 'methodological naturalism', the other 'methodological materialism', the other indicate that he or she is not making a positive claim that the world is (only) materialistic, and the other may indicate that science is limited to observable phenomenon. Some point out his standard of proof would make his own claim, even if proven by 'limited proof', equally invalid and open to criticism as materialism is in his own mind, others may point to the fact that 'ultimate knowledge' is a phallacy. Some may point out he's putting a god on top of a system without it adding anything of value, others' refer to Ockham's razor. Some will say that he has the burden of proof, others will say it's up to him to provide evidence and others will point out that saying that the world is immaterialist in nature is a positive claim that must be established through measurements. One might point out that damage to the brain can change the mind, the other may say that a mind cannot exist without the brain, the other that the mind is a product of the brain...
These are all slightly different approaches, but most of us are pointing out the same flaws in his ideas.
We can point out his non-sequiters, his fallacies and his misinterpretations, but I fear it will be to no avail.
When he reads something that makes sense and destroys his argument he either willfully or unwillingly ignores it or misinterprets it or tries to strawman it. He may not be a religious fanatic or an extremist of any kind. But he does have one thing in common with with religious zealots beside the belief in a 'god': he can't accept the idea of being wrong. Ergo he never will see it.
I applaud your persistance in trying to teach him the error of his logic. I admire the clarity in your arguments and the accompagnying eloquence. If in the future, he responds to something I said in the past, or says something new that hasn't already been rebuked in this conversation, I probably will be there to point it out too. It's hard to let stupidity go unanswered, and I admire your zeal in providing a logical answer. But I just hope you understand, this man is most likely not open to change his mind because he's not open to see anything wrong in his arguments.
That being said: Verbally kick his ass.
Best of luck.
Quote from: Casparov on April 13, 2014, 02:35:35 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
There ya go. Now what? :vegetasmiley:
Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in. Conclusively.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Do you even know what materialism is? Do you think it literally means everything is made of conventional matter? If I thought QM was a problem for materialism, I'd rank it as false, too. You're proposing that reality is fundamentally mental, a form of idealism. You're not going to get there through physics.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
From the abstract of the Peer Reviewed Paper:
"No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice."
Good thing materialsim isn't a synonym for 'naive realism' then, eh?
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
The results of quantum eraser experiments conclusively show that the assumption of Materialism is false. I believe I have met your criteria, have I not?
You don't even meet your own criteria. By the standards YOU've laid out, that study can't be considered evidence of anything, because you can't know you're not a brain in a jar. You don't get to reject any possible basis of evidence and then claim the evidence is on your side. Even if the study meant what you think it does. Solipsism, for the lose.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
You know that you are conscious. Consciousness is non-physical and yet you have gained this knowledge. You know that you have experience. Experience is non-physical and yet you can know this. God as I define it is the source and sum of all consciousness, and is therefore knowable in the exact same way.
That consciousness and experience are non-physical are assumptions you are making. According to materialism, these are emergent properties of matter, that is, you could say, of physics. But if your proposition was granted, we can only know these things of ourselves, for any other entity we must rely on evidence, and if we are brains in jars, that evidence is false. Solipsism loses again.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
A character in a Skyrim could do experiments to discover whether or not he exists in a Material Objective Universe. If he devised a device that let him look far into the distance, and noticed that trees only seemed to pop into existence when we walked close enough to observe them, he would have good reason to believe that he does not exist in a Material Objective Reality. In a Material Universe, trees don't care if there is an observer present or not, they don't pop into existence depending on the actions of an observer. If he somehow noticed that his reality was observer/consciousness dependent and observer/consciousness relative vs observer/consciousness independent, and if he could devise an experiment that proved this, he will have effectively disproved the assumption that the reality he exists in is an Objective Material Universe.
If your hypothetical Skyrim character did that, he would have proven he lives in some sort of simulation, but he will be completely unable to prove that the simulation itself does not exist in a material universe.
Quote from: Casparov on April 10, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I have provided peer reviewed evidence that disproves your positive claim, whereas you have provided nothing but Apologetics.
That we live in a computer simulation is a possibilty that I readily concede, I've often considered it. If it turns out to be true, it still doesn't imply God. It implies advanced technology and someone capable of pressing the right buttons to initiate the simulation in which we find ourselves. The leap from 'maybe we're in a simulation' to 'the simulator is a cosmic being worthy of worship' when it could as easily be dweeb with a super-advanced alien Gamestation is not justified.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 17, 2014, 05:35:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQLypwgqefc
QuoteBrain, in which all mind activities occurred, is material. It therefore exists independent of mind. It has a weight and a mass that is measurable.
QuoteHead injuries that cause the sufferer to act differently and think differently are well documented. As are the effects of hormones and chemicals on the thinking process. If your mind were immaterial, then it wouldn't be affected if I were to inject you with one ampoule of adrenaline.
QuoteIf the mind doesn't rely on the brain then why do we lose certain faculties when we damage parts of our brain?
To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.
How do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else. Even if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind. Until you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)
But now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."
So I will give you an analogy: The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.
Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?
No. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are
immaterial, they are
INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.
If you have a program that runs on a computer, if you cut the computer in half the program will not longer run properly, but this is not proof that the computer and the program are the same thing!!! (unless of course you are a materialist :whistle:)
Now lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind. Materialism must first be proven to be true. And that cannot be done. Brains always appear in a mind. No brain has ever been discovered existing outside of a mind. Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.
Oh, goodie... We're arguing brain in a jar. Yawn.
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 18, 2014, 04:35:59 AM
You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not.
Naive Realism : Also know as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of Idealism no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses.
The realist view is that we perceive objects as they
really are. They are composed of
matter, they occupy space and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste, and colour, that are perceived
correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.
The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following five beliefs:1)
There exists a world of material objects.2) Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3) These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4) These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5) By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of
'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs... Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned." from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
"The counterintuitive features of quantum physics challenge many common-sense assumptions....
No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice.
It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." - from
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
QuoteTrying to knock a co-experienced reality needs evidence, not the other way around.
Which is why i keep provided evidence and you keep providing none.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PMNo brain has ever been discovered existing outside of a mind. Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.
(http://i.imgur.com/SEpCU.gif)
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
This is not what is occurring with respect to Materialism however. Materialism is not the most likely explanation. Nick Bostrom has argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated reality using pure statistical analysis.
A simulation is not immaterial.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
It is not the case that there is a mountain of undeniable evidence that supports the assumption of Materialism and all other possible alternatives to Materialism are highly unlikely imaginative fantasies.... if that is how you perceive it than you are grandly mistaken and quite ignorant of the evidence and arguments that oppose Materialism.
What would you think of someone who says you're ignorant but refuses to provide the information of which they claim you're ignorant?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I am not denying that Materialism has been a working model for a very long time. That is not contested. What I am denying is that it is an unquestionable truth. (which quite a lot of Atheists seem to mistakenly believe as this thread should demonstrate)
Not buying your assertions that you've got evidence against or disproved materialism is not the same thing as asserting materialism is true. There seems to have been rather a dearth of that. If it's unquestionable, it's not because it's dogma, it's because in certain senses, the idea of questioning ceases to make sense if materialism is rejected. How do you question when the basis for making sense of questions is removed?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Materialism is at base, a bare assumption. Philosophically it is unjustifiable. No man can produce a single piece of evidence to support it and certainly no proof. But beyond that, there exists direct evidence that disproves it as a theory about reality.
It's a conclusion, based on experience. Calling it an assumption over and over won't magically make it one (except perhaps, if materialism is false, then calling something, something else over and over again might work). Philosophy uses axioms all the time. 'Reality is real' is a pretty justifiable axiom, given that any alternative axiom that supposes reality isn't real is useless and fruitless. In general, something directly experienced is considered a pretty good reason to accept something as an axiom in philosophy.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
What I am arguing is more like arguing that because when a ship arrives on the horizon from far out at sea, it gradually appears top to bottom vs appearing all at once, a sign that the earth is a sphere and not flat, even though flat earth theory was quite a good model and widely accepted for a very very long time.
No, you seem to be arguing 'suppose that were the case'. It would be irrational to reach the conclusion ahead of the observations that support it. If our universe is a simulation, that in no way implies panentheism. It implies programmers, computers, and all the people who get you there over the history of a species. If I understand AITM correctly, it implies panotheism: the creation is greater than the creators.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Information is not material, and reality is ultimately information based, therefore reality is not material. This can be assumed yes, and it is also possible to be proven.
Yes, it could be proven: All you need is an example of information that doesn't depend on matter, energy, space, or time.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The Atheist has no burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of any particular God he disbelieves in. No Atheist is required to prove that God does not exist, this is true.
Conversely, one could be an agnostic theist, admit that they can't prove God exists and fall back on that's just what they believe, but we rarely run into those.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
But if a person is an Atheist because they are a Materialist and believes that we live in a material objective universe that does not require any God, then that Atheist is required to prove his positive claim about reality. Atheism is his negative position, Materialism is his positive position. He is required to justify his positive assertion.
You haven't established that ANYONE is an atheist because they are a materialist. There's a whole thread of deconversion stories around here somewhere, I don't recall any of them going: 'Once i accepted materialism as true, I could no longer believe in God'.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
When Flat Earth Theory was proven false, was all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven with it? No. Absolutely and emphatically not. If you want to survey land you are farming you still use Flat Earth Theory. All of the proofs made within it's framework still holds because flat earth theory was an appoximation that is still accurate to this day for short distances.
Why would you think this is something of which we're unaware?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
When Einstein proved that Newton's Physics was ultimately false, did all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven? No. Just because we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory now doesn't mean that knocking billiards balls into other billiards balls doesn't cause a reaction that Newton proved within his framework. An apple still falls at the same rate, even though Newtonian Physics isn't ultimately correct. It was an approximation that is still accurate at certain sizes and speeds.
Again, why do you think we're unaware of this, and how do you think it supports your contention that materialism is false? Because other things have been found to not be completely true before, therefore materialism will be, too? Materialism isn't the kind of thing that can be mostly true. If there's a single exception, it's completely false. That's why our inability to find a single exception is so telling.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Similarly, Materialism is a assumption, a model that works to a degree because it is an approximation.
This is a claim that you have failed to support.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The problem is when people believe it to be an unquestionable truth.
You have both failed to demonstrate that your perception that a lot of atheists are these people is accurate OR what the problem would be if they were. It's only a problem if materialism is false, not really a problem if materialism just might not be true, which everyone here seems to agree could be the case.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
You seem to be finally admitting that Materialism is an unjustified assumption, which i commend. Thank you. But you immediately and with the same breath have to throw in the "but you can't prove yours either!" :grin: And that's okay.
You keep saying things like this and I keep being unable to find the things that other people have said that could justifiably lead you to this conclusion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
If it can be proven that information is the base of reality, then it will be proven that reality is ultimately immaterial, and the perceived materiality is an illusion produced by our experience of it, an approximation, a guess, an assumption.
To be ultimately immaterial, information would have to be independent of matter, energy, time, and space, in any universe.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I believe that information as the base reality would prove that we live in an immaterial universe rather than just assume it as so.
Showing that information is immaterial would go a long way towards establishing that an immaterial universe is possible.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality. I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality, and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.
A God? Why not a million? Why not an impersonal number generator that kicks out the information for a universe every trillion cubed burps? Why not a material universe like ours, only real, in which all other universes are but simulations?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:54:52 PM
Duly noted. If you make zero positive claims about reality, you are called a Nihilist, and you are therefore impossible to debate with.
Um, that is NOT the definition of nihilism. Nihilism concerning reality is an assertion about reality (that it's meaningless and valueless) which can certainly be debated. Limiting your claims to what you can support is what, scientific rationalism? I'd love to see the argument for making claims you can't support.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I commend you for the commitment to never being wrong by remaining silent. This is a good (but lazy and some may say cowardly) strategy, but as you have eliminated the possibility of being wrong you have at the same time eliminated the possibility of being right.
It's really inconvenient when real people don't hold the views you've assigned to them in your fantasies, isn't it?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
You can't win until you accept a positive position. If you choose to not take any position about the nature of reality, you don't win, you fore-fit, and therefore are not part of the conversation.
Guess what? You don't get to decide who is in or out of the conversation.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make.
Really? It must have been great to have been a blank slate when you started 'building your world view'.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.
You've assumed you've identified accurately.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
This is how I believe all World Views should be built, from the ground up, but sadly most people just go to the World View Buffet and pick out a ready-made World View that fits with their preconceptions and hold on for dear life. A pre-made World View with assumptions effectively hidden deep within for convenience.
Speaking of unjustifed assumptions....
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 01:13:41 PM
I wouldn't call that Materialism, I'd call that science. And it works just as well whether we work in an Objective Material Universe or we live in a simulated Universe or anything else.
Why should we care what YOU'D call materialism? You don't seem to have any idea of what it actually is and seem to base your understanding of it solely on its etymology.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 01:17:14 PM
I am not saying that if you can't prove your world view then mine is automatically right. I am just saying.... that you can't prove your world view. :biggrin2:
What's hijiri's world view? Are you wiling to put money on your ability to describe it accurately?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 04:06:06 PM
If it is not an unsupported assumption, then that means there is surely proof or evidence to support it. If it is an unsupported assumption, then that means that there is not any proof or evidence to support it.
So if you do not agree that there is no proof or evidence for Materialism, then simply provide the proof or evidence that supports it. Very easy and simple.
Done and done. Only problem is, you don't accept perceivable reality as evidence...except when you think it supports your position. That's a level of denial that can only be penetrated from within.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.
How do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else. Even if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind. Until you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)
But now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."
Consciousness is not a
thing. It is a
process, something that the brain
does. That's why you mistakenly think that it is an immaterial object, because you mistakenly think it is an object proper instead of a process that is merely given the
semantics of an object proper. Consciousness isn't material because it's not a thing at all, not because it is an immaterial thing.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
So I will give you an analogy:
You really like your analogies, don't ya? It's because you can't argue on the subject on its own terms, so you have to resort to reasoning by analogy.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.
Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?
No. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are immaterial, they are INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.
So you argue that, because another
material copy of the message exists eleswhere, that the message itself is immaterial?
Bullshit. First off, the information encoded on the DVD is
not a process, like consciousness is. The information on the DVD is a static pattern of pips in its data layer. Consciousness is dynamic, changing from moment to moment as thoughts run through it. (This is the true meaning of "I think, therefore I am," by the way. It's the recognition that something is happening to you, which makes no sense if you do not exist.) Already your analogy is defective.
Secondly, the only reason you know that the true meaning and message of the DVD is X is because there exists an intact copy of it for you to compare against it. If that scratched, unplayable DVD is the only copy that exists, then the information on that disk is lost to you, forever.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
Now lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind.
Dead brains.
You keep separating mind from brain. "Mind" is nothing but a name for a collection of neurological activities. If you shoot somebody in the head and kill them, their brain is dead- their mind does not exist separately and will die with the brain.
apparently you are not aware that there have been numerous experiments done to chart the activity of the brain in its function. The "mind" function, whether it be expressed as happiness, hatred, or any emotion imaginable, or any thought process imaginable, shows physiological activity that can be charted- neurons discharging, receptors gathering and so on. The advent of antidepressants and other chemicals stem from the discovery of neurotransmitters like Serotonin and hormones like Endorphin that cause changes in brain function, measurable changes in mood, cognition and so forth.
Regardless of new discoveries that may change our view of the universe, there is no evidence of a spiritual, non physical universe that has yet replaced what we can know and test for in our sadly material one.
You have not provided it, and you can't, because your world view is not based on evidence but on philosophical ideas. Personally, I'll take a reality I can measure in real terms.
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 01:23:36 AM
Now, because I am being very cautious and trying to maintain rational skepticism in order to build a sound world view, I am interested in entertaining Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, but first would like to hear the case.
I'm not sure you really understand what the qualifier 'rational' means when applied to 'skepticism'.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
When another presents Materialism as a solution to me, they are making a positive claim about reality which is subject to the burden of proof. This assertion then requires evidence, or else it is just a bare assertion with nothing to support it.
'Reality is real' is an axiom which comports with our experience and makes all other human endeavor possible. But that won't satisfy someone determined to find a way conclude 'therefore, God'. That's pretty much the only person unsatisfied by that axiom, and even then, only a special subset of those.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I know that my own mind exists. But I quickly learn that there is no proof for Materialism. It is a bald assumption, unsupported and unjustified. This is because we do not observe the exterior world directly. We do not perceive matter itself. What we perceive is a representation of the outside world produced by filtered information and interpreted by our own conscious experience.
Good. Now explain how this is no evidence at all when it's the only evidence of anything that we actually have.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
In Philosophy this is known as the Veil of Perception Problem. Naive Realism is the belief that what we perceive is exactly as it really it, and this seems to be the position of the Materialists I encounter.
It's the position of NONE of the people participating in this thread, and you seem to think most of us are materialists.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
There is no evidence to support this position, and certainly no proof.
You can't even describe what evidence would convince you, while I've repeatedly given examples of what would convince me, such as demonstrating information without physical substrate. Proof is for math and whiskey.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Materialism is presented to me as a possible solution to Solipsism but it is an unjustified assumption because of the Veil of Perception Problem, the equal possibility of other explanations such as the Simulation Argument, and the complete and utter lack of evidence to support it. I also know that Materialism states that the only things that exist are material objects and their interactions, which seems to negate the existence of my Mind, the only thing I really know with certainty actually exists.
There is no evidence to support the thing I've concluded is false. There is no evidence to support the thing I've concluded is false. If I repeat this enough, that's all that's necessary to convince the people who don't agree with me.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
In order to accept Materialism I would have to sacrifice the only thing I know with absolute certainty in favor of an unprovable unjustified assumption.
Only if your understanding of materialism is so profoundly misinformed that you think it asserts that consciousness does not exist, rather than that it does exist as an emergent property of physics. And the only people who seem to be trying to get you to accept materialism are in your own head.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Those that do this seem to do so out of fear more than anything else because Materialism provides a simple and comfortable explanation that eases the uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty.
Those? You've found more than one materialist here? Name two.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The universe and everything it get wrapped up with a pretty little Material bow.
That a claim about everything account for everything is the very least one should expect from a claim about everything.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
But the Game Ender for me when it comes to Materialism is the growing amount of scientific evidence that seems to directly refute Materialism, therefore, after all is said and done, I am forced to remain skeptical.
Since you don't understand what materialism is, you are incapable of understanding what would count as evidence for or against it. Since you reject the proposition that reality is real, you have no basis with which to evaluate scientific evidence, or any evidence at all.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
1) Mind exists.
2) Mind is immaterial.
What is the evidence for this, bearing in mind that 'it seems immaterial to me' is something we're far beyond, evidence-wise, and evidence can only be perceived by the senses, the reality of which you reject.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
3) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
As long as you don't use a laughably naive defintion of 'matter'.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
4) Materialism is an unprovable assumption.
Being unprovable does not make it an assumption. We perceive reality, however imperfectly (especially microscopically and 'megascopically'), and as in your example of perceiving your own mind, we are utterly unable to successfully act as if it isn't real. Much the same justification for accepting reality as real is used as was for accepting that I am real. I can't prove it to anyone else, but I can experience it directly and am unable to disengage from it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
5) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.
Did you use your senses to find that out?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
C1) I know that Mind exists but Materialism requires that it does not, therefore Mind is not compatible with Materialism and I cannot doubt the existence of my Mind so Materialism must be a false assumption about the nature of reality.
C2) Two key characteristics of a Material Universe are the Principle of Causality and Local Realism and yet recent scientific experimentation has conclusively demonstrated that both of these characteristics of a Material Universe can be violated, therefore Materialism is a false assumption about the nature of reality.
Have you considered reading a book on the topic of materialism? There is literally nothing in this segment of your post that is actually correct.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Plus it is impossible to provide even a shred of evidence, proof, or justification for asserting Materialism beyond bare assumption.
You just can't repeat that too much, eh?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
So with Materialists unable to provide a convincing argument for their world view, I am still left with Solipsism but searching for a way out.
Stay there, with the materialists in your head. The location seems suited to your 'revolvolutionary' level of thinking.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
So I talk to more people, and they assert that the solution to Solipsism is obviously Substance Dualism. They say that mind exists, which I agree with, and they also say that matter exists. They say that both existence simultaneously, mind existing in the Material Objective World. I like this idea because at first it seems like the best of both worlds, but I want to remain skeptical of all claims, and so, knowing that this too is a positive assertion about the nature of reality, I know that it too is subject to the burden of proof, and so I seek evidence to justify this positive claim.
That doesn't sound like a very accurate description of substance dualism, either.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
What I discover is even worse than what I got for Materialism. All of the same problems of Materialism are still there, the Veil of Perception Problem, the Simulation Argument, the complete lack of any evidence, but the Game Ender for Substance Dualism is the Causal Interaction Problem. It is impossible to explain how immaterial mind can interact with material objects. Material Objects by definition cannot be effected by anything immaterial. This for me, makes Substance Dualism an impossibility, and another failed attempt to resolve Solipsism, and thus I am forced to remain skeptical.
This part seems sound.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I wont go into it here, but Substance Dualism is probably the most thoroughly refuted assertion about reality out there.
So what options do I have left? Well... There is one more, and here it goes:
P1.) Minds can exist in a solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Minds are not material.

P3.) Substance dualism is impossible.
C2.) Matter can not possibly exist, all that can exist is mind, and thus Monistic Idealism is true.
Except that there's no evidence for it--and can never be, since monistic idealism declares reality an illusion and that means all evidence is illusory too--, it's unprovable, and materialism actually can account for consciousness.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
Monistic Idealism is a solution to Solipsism that does not suffer from any of the problems the other explanations do. It is even consistent with modern Quantum Experimentation that is slowly doing away with Materialism and Realism in general. Idealism states that reality is a mental construct, and does not exist dependent of mind.
Anything at all is consistent with monistic idealism since it is the position that reality is essentially imaginary, so evidence of any kind is completely irrelevant since it's all imaginary. Even a simulation is infinitely more real than the actual case if monist idealism is true.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
If all is mind, and mind is immaterial, then it follows that the apparent objective material reality we experience is in fact a mental construct, as well as the apparent individuality and separateness we seem to possess because what is immaterial does not have definite boundaries by definition. Objectivity and separateness are illusions. All consciousness and all experience and all existence together as one grand thing in the Tenth Dimension, is worthy of the Title "God."
And how does being a figment of an overarching consciousness fit in with your perception that you are a conscious individual?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I then conclude that Idealism is more reasonable and more justified than both Substance Dualism and Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, and also more consistent with current scientific experimentation.
In a mental construct, there's no result that scientific experimentation can't produce. Scientists farting purple bunnies is just as valid (and likely) a finding as quantum entanglement.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
1) Materialism if true would negate the existence of God, afterlife, soul, mind, and all other things immaterial.
Here we get to the meat of why you prefer a reality where scientists could just as easily fart purple bunnies as investigate quantum entanglement. You like those things, and you think materialism negates them.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
2) Substance Dualism would save the intuition to cling to Realism with regards to perceptions but also allows for the existence of immaterial such as mind, soul, gods, afterlife etc into the mix.
So you turned to something even more useless and stupid.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
3) Idealism rejects the intuition of Naive Realism but expands the undoubtable knowledge of the existence of mind to include our perceptions, (even those perceptions that seems extremely physical and objectively material) and as the only rational alternative to solipsism, also just so happens to allow for and even necessitate the existence of mind, god, afterlife, and all other things immaterial, because it states that all is immaterial, and all is mind.
And all is imaginary, including you. Good going!
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
"God" in this world view would then be analogous to Rob Bryanton's description of the tenth dimension: A mind with ultimate degrees of freedom encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once.
FIN
P.S. Turned into another book.... I tried.
Thanks for explaining your position and actually engaging us. It's a refreshing change of pace from all the people who never get around to presenting their reasoning. Although I think your reasoning is profoundly flawed, you're participating honestly, and that counts for a lot.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.
No. We are not.
You are just missing the point. You always do this.
You asked why we thought minds are a subject of matter. It is clear from any observation ever that a brain is required in order to get a 'mind'. And that the status of the brain affects the 'mind'. The mind thus is dependend on the status of the brain. Even if this is all a simulation, you still need a brain to have a functioning mind.
And yes, it can exist without. Brain-dead people, commonly known as 'plants', do exist. They are not conscious. They have no mind. They have no brain-activity. Yet their body lives. From all observations it becomes clear: you can have brain without mind, but not mind without brain.
You can say, if materialism isn't true than there is perhaps a 'Mind' at work without a brain. If that were the case, than it could exist without. If it exists, it exists. But it would go contrary to all previous observations. And without any proof, your claim for this is dismissible without effort.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
How do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else. Even if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind. Until you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)
Again; within your standards for proof, it can't be proven to exist. But, AGAIN, within your standards of proof nothing can. Not even your claims. Say you could make predictions and measurements to measure this 'immaterial reality' of yours. By your standards it would not suffice. Because you dismiss the 'limited proof' within the framework of 'methodological materialism'. One could always dismiss any 'limited proof' within your 'methodological immaterialism'. Even if we were to have such 'limited proof', workable theories within the framework of the 'immaterial', one could still ask; but isn't there a yet undiscovered material law of nature that explains everything or perhaps something else entirely that is not disproven (though also not proven) to exist? Let's entertain the hypothesis that you could have working models in an immaterialist view that explained how the relationship between brain and mind as you put it is proven. I could then still, with as much reason and validity as you do now, claim that there is a material explanation that is not yet fully understood but that is greater than our immaterial hive-mind and that makes it look like we are just a hive-mind creating a world that looks material to us. You can always put it one step further because 'limited proof' can not ultimately prove a framework by your standards.
The only problem is, no such 'limited proof' within the framework of 'immaterialism' exists. The immaterial perspective provides no chance to build theories, make predictions or measurements. So there is no reason the accept it as true. So we have no reason to take it the step further.
If you make the claim that an immaterial reality exists, the burden of proof is on you. I do not claim it doesn't exist. I don't claim it cannot exist. If it did, perhaps it could even be measured. But untill then, the material (even if it were a simulation, which is a claim that has no empirical evidence backing it up) is all we've observed so far.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
But now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."
Pretty much the idea, yeah.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
So I will give you an analogy: The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.
Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?
Pretty much the idea, yeah.
Except that a DVD is imprinted with the information from an outside source. While the brain has it's mind be an emergent property from it's (bio)material parts.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
No. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are immaterial, they are INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.
No, you are wrong. Just like a damaged brain, the DVD ceizes to be able to process the information on it. But also the information on it, is lost. The information stored in it, is useless, it can not be produced. It's gone. If you have a piece of information on a disk, whitch gets shattered you can not load the information from that disk onto another disk. You would need an earlier file on your computer and store it on another disk. And it is this 'immaterial mastercomputer' with all the files to go onto the discs that you would have to prove.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
If you have a program that runs on a computer, if you cut the computer in half the program will not longer run properly, but this is not proof that the computer and the program are the same thing!!! (unless of course you are a materialist :whistle:)
Again, the computer does not have the program be an emergent property from it. So though it can be a usefull analogy, you need to keep this in mind when you say program and computer aren't the same thing. True they aren't the same, but the brain isn't a computer, nor is the mind a program. A program, even coded and in a package and not on a computer is still a tangeable, material and measurable thing. The mind, however, can not be observed outside of the brain. At least it has never been. The most likely reason for this is that it's an emergent property of that brain, shown by how it's altered if the brain is damaged and how it can't exist without it, unlike the program.
And if you want to claim there is a mind without a brain that creates brains so that it can run it's sub-minds on them as programs that seem, in every way measurable and observable, to be emergent properties of said brains, you have made an outrageously complex claim. You've added complexity to a working model without any evidence for said complexity. You have, as I've said before, put a God on top of a working model. And there is no need for that.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
Now lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind. Materialism must first be proven to be true. And that cannot be done.
Again, brain-dead people exist. It's possible to have your brain technically stay 'alive' without any neurological activity that indicates consciousness or 'Mind'. As for the materialism part, I've made myself clear on that.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
Brains always appear in a mind. No brain has ever been discovered existing outside of a mind.
Minds can appear in brains, as emergent properties. No mind has ever been discovered existing outside of a brain. You got that mixed up there, I fixed it for you.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.
Not with absolute certainty, but that's semantics and philosophical bullshit. But even if it were, and I don't mind it being so for the sake of argument, that does not mean the other observations aren't true. It doesn't logically lead you to the conclusion that minds exist without brains. It doesn't validate the existance of an immaterial reality. It doesn't logically lead to a 'hive-mind-god' reality within said immaterial universe. Your non-sequiturs are just that, non-sequiturs
Quote from: Casparov on April 16, 2014, 02:47:56 AM
@sasuke
lol You're right, I should have said, "No need to hear the case for Materialism, I choose to accept it on blind faith grounded in a firm belief in Naive Realism. Case closed!" and just ended it right there huh?
No you should have learned what the case for materialism actually IS, if for no other reason than being able to attempt to refute it without sounding like you have a grade-schooler's understanding of it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:46:28 AM
I shall consider the alternative:
Mind is material. It therefore exists independent of mind. It has a weight and a mass that is measurable.
I suppose that's AN alternative, though an unintelligible one. Have you ever considered asking other people what other alternatives could be instead of making up your own? You're so terrible at it that's it's no wonder you're a monist idealist.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:50:53 AM
Demonstrably false means it has been demonstrated. Demonstrate away. Or point to the demonstration.
I honestly was not aware that you guys thought minds were material objects. This is interesting to me, but consistent with Materialism, so at least you are staying consistent.
You shouldn't even consider yourself qualified to say anything about materialism if you haven't investigated how materialism addresses minds, and it shouldn't even have occurred to you that materialism doesn't have a take on that.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 12:52:27 AM
Materialism being false does not mean that suddenly the laws of physics no longer apply. "Either materialism or true, or we can fly." Is a False Dichotomy.
Correct. Monist idealism means that there is no more reason to expect that we can't fly than that we can't walk, because the rules underlying reality are held within a mind that can change any of them at will, and we can't know what that mind is going to do next, or that we weren't imagined five seconds ago complete with imagined history. Anything goes, including the status quo, but considering the infinite range of other possibilites, the odds are it won't stay the same much longer, wouldn't you think?
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:11:51 AM
It cannot be weighed or measured or even detected in any way. It has all of the qualities of being immaterial and none of the qualities of being a material object.
Wouldn't one of the qualities of being immaterial be 'being independent of a physical substrate'?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
If you are claiming that "energy" is immaterial and coexists with "matter", then you are a dualist not a Materialist.
No one is claiming energy is immaterial. It's part of 'matter' as 'matter' is defined in the position of materialism. As you should already know if you're going to make so many statements about materialism.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
If you are saying that "energy" is not material, then you are not a Materialist, because you are admitting the existence of something immaterial. So what does it matter if e= mc^2 if there are just two different states of Material? This changes nothing.
It certainly challenges your notion that your interlocutor thinks energy is immaterial. And did your interlocutor state that they are a materialist?
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I do not doubt that we have perceptions.
But you claim outright that our perceptions don't pertain to anything that is actually real.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I doubt that we perceive the world directly and can conclusively prove that we are perceiving an objective material reality.
It's a fact that we don't perceive the world directly, but facts aren't real in monist idealism.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I doubt this based on The Veil of Perception Problem, the fact that what we perceive is only a representation of an external reality. Our perceptions are produced by interpreting information which could easily be produced by Nick Bostrom's Simulated Universe.
And you resolve that pesky Veil of Perception problem by getting rid of that pesky reality. Under your scheme there IS no external reality, only mind. Not even a computer to be simulated on.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I have no reason to assume Materialism is true.
Besides your inability to behave as though it isn't.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
You have provided no valid reason beyond "Naive Realism" which I reject based on current scientific experimentation.
The naive realists on this thread are actually only in your head, monist idealism or no.
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
I have absolutely no reason to accept your world view.
Reality being real would be SO inconvenient to your afterlife!
Quote from: Casparov on April 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
The only logical conclusion I can come to that is consistent with what I can justify as existing philosophically and that is consistent with current scientific experimentation is that Materialism is False, Substance Dualism is False, and Idealism entails.
Are you incapable of grasping the contradiction between your world view and appealing to scientific experimentation? The results of experiments are whatever the MIND wants them to be and could as easily be ANYTHING else. A simulation is still ultimately bound by the laws of physics, it can have flaws as you've described, but in a world of pure imagination, clues only lead where the dreamer wants its dreams to go. Flaws in a monist idealist 'reality' are deliberate, and cannot be trusted at all. Simulations are material, they run on brains and computers. In monist idealism there can't be any real clues that you're in a simulation: those clues are considered significant because they reveal limits to what can be simulated; and monist idealism has no such limits.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:41:31 AM
When a character jumps off a cliff in Skyrim, it dies. Is this proof that skyrim is an objective material universe?
Skyrim IS a material universe. It is made of material.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:41:31 AM
THANK YOU BABY JESUS!!! ding ding ding ding ding!! :new_birthday:
You are the first to finally admit that it is an assumption! Thank you very much for your intellectual honesty, it is truly commendable considering the circumstances!
It's YOUR intellectual honesty that's in doubt. Note the 'if' in the sentence you're declaring an admission. How desparate are you for someone here to validate you?
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 10:46:44 PM
You are absolutely right. Just because you perceive a character that says he exists, that does not prove to you that you he exists. But because you are perceiving, you know that you exist. The fact that you are aware of anything at all, is proof that you exist.
Incorrect. You are aware, therefore you exist. The fact that you are having experiences, whether the experiences are illusions or not, is proof that you exist. You cannot doubt your own existence. As soon as you say "I doubt that I exist." the fact that you have that capability itself is proof that you exist.
Yet, under monist idealism. you are fictional. We all are. There is only one mind, really.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.
Bearing this in mind (heh), why did you ask how much a mind weighs? You seem to be unable to operate outside of the materialist paradigm except in short bursts. When you are operating in the idealist paradigm, no evidence can work on you because you don't believe ANY evidence is valid, but that level of irrationality is hard to maintain, isn't it?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-brain-and-consciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousness
Jacob Sage,M.D. from "Psychology Today"
Quote:
Ask yourself, is the functioning brain identical to the mind? If your answer is no, you are a closet dualist. You believe that brain and mind are made of different kinds of stuff. Such a stance will make it hard for you to understand the nature of consciousness. It will make the mental aspects of our lives mysterious and unknowable.
I am a working neurologist who sees brain disease causing mental dysfunction every day. Take the case of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. If she does not recover pretty much full brain function, her mental states will be altered, and she may not be able to function in Congress as she did before the bullet damaged her brain. If the bullet had done more damage than it apparently did, she might not now be fully conscious. Hopefully she will recover. There is the famous case of Phineas Gage, however, in which brain damage to the frontal lobes of the brain by a railfoad spike turned a sober, hard-working man into a lout. His mind was altered because his brain was altered. He was a different person after that spike went through his brain.
The main reason many people remain dualists, however, is because they find it impossible to believe that brain function can entirely explain consciousness. They think that after all the neurotransmitters have hit their receptors and all the neurons have fired, there is still something that has been left out of any explanation of consciousness. The thing that has been left out, they say, is the conscious feeling of what is like to be in a certain state. Furthermore, all the whirling electrons cannot explain why a certain neuronal configuration results in our seeing blue rather than red. Another objection that I have heard is, "What about my soul"? So they conclude than consciousness cannot be fully explained by brain function. But if that is true, where is consciousness and what is it?
As a neurologist, I contend that consciousness is nothing more than the ability of our brain to acquire information (which is the state of being awake) AND all the content that the information contains AND the ability to get all that information into and out of memory. The key word is "ALL". If you have all that, you are conscious of the blue sky and the red sun. Nothing more is needed to be conscious of that beautiful sky. My contention is that the brain can do all that, and, therefore, a functioning brain is identical to a conscious mind. That makes me a materialist and not a dualist. In the coming months, I want to explore these ideas. I want to hear what you think, your objections to my position and your arguments for and against these ideas.
If you are looking for an informed opinion that is dead on, this should qualify. Neurologist who works with brain function says Dualists are deluded and he himself is a Materialist. So Casparov, why don't you jump on "Psychology Today" and call the eminent Neurologist a liar. we'll wait. :axe:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 18, 2014, 07:18:22 AM
Actually, papers on that particular archive are NOT peer reviewed. The arxiv.org archive is for preprints.
Okay, here are the two exact same papers in presented on their actual peer reviewed journals:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html)
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221.short (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221.short)
I presented them to you via the arXiv.org website because that is the only way you will be able to read them without subscribing to peer reviewed journals.... and now you have attempted to make this a case for dismissing the results of these experiments out of hand. :doh:
You guys seem to be trying very hard to find a way to dismiss the scientific evidence rather than actually address it directly. I have had someone attempt to dismiss it based on "they are old" and now you trying to dismiss it because they are "preprints", neither of the claims being true. The 1999 paper the first person was referring to was conducted by Scurry and was only the first successful run of this "type" of experiment, whereas the one I have presented was done in 2012, and the other in 2007.
It is funny to me. I hear Atheists say all the time, "the beauty of science is that we don't claim to know. We, unlike faith based ideologies, are willing to change our views depending on the evidence." And now that I put that statement to the test, you are making wild attempts to dismiss the evidence before even entertaining the possibility of changing your preconceptions.
"We want facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions." - Jessamyn West
QuoteThe other thing is that you are falling into the old trap of thinking that when a physicist says "observer" in a physical context, that he means a person. He does not. What he means by an observer is "a physical apparatus that is able to collect sufficient data about a phenomenon."
It is you who are mistaken kind sir. The experiment I provided, and even the one successfully completed in 1999 which is called the Quantum Eraser Experiment was constructed specifically to test this theory of yours.
They run the test with measuring devices that are capable of erasing the information after they have recorded it. So they shoot the electrons at the slits, the measuring devices record the which-path information by "physically interacting" with the particle as you claim, and then the electron arrives at the back slid.
Now before they "observe" the results of the experiment, they erase the information that was recorded by the measuring devices. This means that they no longer have the which-path information because they erased it, but the measuring devices still "physically interacted" with the particle as you rightly say it had to. So the result should be, because the "physical interaction" happened, even though they erased the information it recorded, they should still get a particle patter rather than a wave patter. Right? Well guess what?
THEY DONT.
This experiment conclusively proved that the "physical interaction" is not the cause of collapse, but rather what causes the collapse is the ability for an observer to have the which-path information. As soon as the information about which slit the particle went through becomes available to an observer, the wave function collapses and they get a particle pattern.
On the other hand, if they don't have the information of which slit it when through, even if there was a measuring devices that recorded that information by "physically interacting" with the particle and then erased that information, they still get a wave pattern. The conclusion is that wave function collapse is caused by the observers ability to have which-path information, and this has not been a point of debate since 1999.
QuoteThis confusion is one of the most persistent bugbears of physical science because it gives license to people like you who misunderstand "observer" as a person looking at the expermient and somehow influencing the outcome with the force of his thoughts, and thus materialism is dead. Sorry, but to a physicist, the observer effect does not indicate any such woo. What he understands is that observation itself is a physical interaction with the phenomenon observed. As such, the notion that the fact that you are observing different aspects of a phenomenon changes the outcome of an experiment shouldn't be surprising, because to change the way you observe the experiment is to change the experiment.
The very experiments I presented to you are the one's that disprove the claim you are making. It would be very convenient for you as a materialist if measuring devices themselves caused collapse just by "physical interaction" because this would leave realist Materialism intact, but this has been conclusively proven to not be the case. Therefore, you are wrong sir.
Now I'm sure I can expect you to completely disregard all of the scientific experimentation and the conclusive results that contradict your desired preconception about reality in order to preserve your world view, and that is fine, do what you have to do in order feel secure in your beliefs, but know that what you believe is not consistent with science, nor philosophy.
QuoteIt's counterintuitive and defies common sense because on the macroscale the probes we use to observe are so puny compared to what we are observing that they do not significantly affect the object in question, and any perturbations are drowned out by thermal noise. But in the quantum realm, using probes that are comparable in energy to the phenomenon you are observing is unavoidable â€" the interaction of observation is as significant as any other interaction in the experiment.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser eviscerates your contention because whether the result is wave or particle is produced by a choice to observe or not observe after the experiment is already run. Thus proving conclusively that this "interaction of observation" you are referring to did not affect the experiment as it was run, because this choice is made AFTER THE FACT.
QuoteThere is nothing in the abstracts you quoted that that undermine materialism. The only thing you have exposed is your ignorance about the subject. These are physical papers, so the phrase "independent of observation" has to be understood within that physical context, and that phrase differs in significant ways to the layman's understanding of that phrase.
All I can tell you is that experiments made by zeilinger and aspect has disproven local realism. As well as bell's inequality being validated, which means no hidden variables, which in turn means you have to abandon either realism or locality or realism and locality at the same time. Materialism is founded upon realism and requires locality, this whole picture of reality needs to be abandoned according to modern quantum experimentation.
You can deny the evidence. You can dismiss the scientific conclusions. And you can continue believing what you want to believe. I do not have the power to force you to change your mind, I can only hope that a rational person who values logic will be intellectually honest enough to look at the evidence and invest the time required to come to a valid conclusion. I cannot make you do this.
But if all you want to do is just deny all the evidence out right and hold tight to your preconceptual assumption about reality, you have that option available to you.
Quote from: Mister Agenda on April 18, 2014, 06:37:27 PM
Bearing this in mind (heh), why did you ask how much a mind weighs? You seem to be unable to operate outside of the materialist paradigm except in short bursts. When you are operating in the idealist paradigm, no evidence can work on you because you don't believe ANY evidence is valid, but that level of irrationality is hard to maintain, isn't it?
My contention is that information is constitutive of reality rather than objective material objects. I am a Monistic Idealist because I understand that information and consciousness are two sides of the same immaterial coin.
Because I am skeptical of Materialism does not then mean that I believe the reality we are currently perceiving will not continue to operate in the way we have observed in the past. I operate within this reality just as you do, I simply disagree on what
constitutes this reality.
Thank you for your many responses, this thread was originally just an introduction, I did not intend it to turn into a debate against the entire forum. I am very interested in the debate, however I would prefer a more structured environment.
Mister Agenda, are you willing to engage in a Formal Debate with me in the Debates Section of this forum? If not, I extend this invitation to any and all who read this and are game. I am even open to having multiple debates after the first is complete.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/materialism-deconstructed_b_2228362.html
In my last blog I objected to a statement made by physicist David Tong in the December 2012 Scientific American who said it is a "lie" that the building blocks of nature are discrete particles such as the electron or quark. Rather, Tong asserted, the building blocks of our theories are quantum fields.
Here I want to explain why this is not just a pedagogical issue, a trivial dispute between two eggheads. It has real consequences on how scholars outside of physics, as well as the reading public, interpret the dramatic developments in fundamental physics, both experimental and theoretical, that began early in the twentieth century and continue today. Believe it or not, the particle-field debate affects heavy discussions on theology, spirituality and the interaction of religion and science.
Those who read the popular literature on science and religion, such as Tong's article, may receive the impression that modern physics has refuted the picture of atoms and the void proposed by Democritus and other Greek philosophers millennia ago. For example, in The New Sciences of Religion: Exploring Spirituality From the Outside in and Bottom Up, Christian apologist William Grassie says, "The concept of materialism deconstructed itself with the advent of quantum mechanics and particle physics."
To be ecumenical, Grassie quotes the Hindu physicist Varadaraja V. Raman: "Physics has penetrated into the substratum of perceived reality and discovered a whole new realm of entities there, beyond the imagination of the most creative minds of the past."
Now, maybe Democritus did not imagine quarks. But he did imagine material particles, and the quarks, at least in the current model, are material particles. The "new realm of entities" uncovered in modern physics is hardly beyond imagination. They are imagined in the quantum theory of fields, although just imagining something does not make it real -- despite what some theologians claim and what some physicists seem to believe.
The claim that quantum mechanics has revealed a reality beyond matter is based on the notion that two separate realities exist: discrete, particulate matter and a plenum that is reminiscent of the long-discredited aether. However, at least the electromagnetic aether was material. The new aether is more abstract, more in tune with the duality of mind and body that is embedded in all religious thought. Unsurprisingly, theologians and spiritualists delight in this new dualism -- handed to them on a platter by theoretical physicists.
The idea that abstract, holistic quantum fields are the deeper reality while particles are simply the excitations of the fields did not begin with David Tong. Indeed, it has almost become a mantra. For example, in The Atom in the History of Human Thought, historian Bernard Pullman writes,
To the extent that a Democritean influence has shaped our conception of the world, there has been a tendency to stress the corpuscular aspect of the standard model and to introduce a certain formal distinction between particles of matter and intermediary particles associated with force fields. As a result, we may have given the impression that that this corpuscular aspect provides the most exact description of physical reality. Such a view would be unfortunate, as it might obscure what is considered today as the most plausible picture of reality, which not only unifies the concepts of particles and fields, but even considers fields preeminent over particles ... The fundamental and underlying reality of the world is embodied in the existence of a slew of fields and in their interactions.
Pullman is applying the Platonic view of reality, which, as I have discussed previously, is the working assumption of most theoretical physicists and mathematicians. In order to test their models, physicists assume that the elements of these models correspond in some way to reality. But they are compared against the data that flow from our so-called "particle detectors" on the floor of an accelerator lab. It is the data that form the concrete foundation of our knowledge. What is fundamental in our model is not necessarily fundamental to our knowledge. Models are squiggles on the whiteboards in the theory section of the physics building. Those squiggles are easily erased; the data aren't.
Indeed, unpublished results are beginning to trickle in that the whiteboard squiggles of a generation of theorists describing their speculations on a theory called supersymmetry may soon be erased by data from the LHC. Although we need to wait and see, such a result would provide dose of humility to those who think they can infer reality by their thoughts alone, as well as an impetus to explore more unorthodox approaches.
The application of Platonic reality to physics is fraught with problems. First, theories are notoriously temporary. We can never know if quantum field theory will someday be replaced with another more powerful theory that makes no mention of fields (or particles, for that matter). Second, as with all physical theories, quantum field theory is a model -- a human invention. We test our models to find out if they work; but we can never be sure they correspond to "reality." That's metaphysics. If there were an empirical way to determine ultimate reality, it would be physics, not metaphysics. Third, quantum fields all have quanta that we associate with the so-called elementary particles.
In relativistic quantum field theory, which is the fundamental mathematical theory of particle physics and the basis of the standard model, each quantum field has an associated particle called the quantum of the field. These are the elementary particles of the highly successful standard model developed in the 1970s. The recent confirmation of the Higgs boson was a great triumph of the theory. The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field. The electron is the quantum of the Dirac field. The Higgs boson is the quantum of the Higgs field. I know of no empirically verified example where a quantum field exists without its quantum. Particles are just as much building blocks of our theories as fields. In fact, they are the same building blocks.
There are no exceptions. For every field, we have a particle; for every particle, we have a field. So, it is incorrect to think that field and particle exist as separate realities. We do not have a field-particle duality. We have, as Pullman says, a field-particle unity.
Please note that the elementary particles of the standard model are not to be thought of as classical objects like billiard balls; they obey all the rules of quantum mechanics. For example, as Feynman showed back in 1948, electrons can zigzag back and forth in space-time and thereby appear many places at the same time. This is usually called "nonlocality" but a better term is "multilocality." Note that, in this picture, the electron never moves faster than the speed of light. No superluminal connections of any kind are required when you recognize that time is reversible in physics. I'll expand on that at another time.
How does all this relate to the so-called wave-particle duality that you read about in books on quantum mechanics (textbooks as well as popular books)? The authors often write, "An object is either a particle or a wave, depending on what you decide to measure." This is very misleading and has led to the widespread misconception that quantum mechanics shows that human consciousness has the ability to control reality, namely, to decide whether an object is a particle or a wave. That object could be a pulse of light from galaxy 13 billion light-years away. So, the implication is that if we can control the nature of reality with our minds, this must occur not just here and now but throughout the universe and for every moment in time, past and future. Do you believe this? This is exactly what the quantum spiritualists, who hear that particles (which cannot travel faster than light) are a lie, are saying.
For those who have not moved beyond non-relativistic Schrödinger wave mechanics, the wave picture provides a perfectly good model to compute quantum effects, without having to think about what mysterious aether is doing the waving. To nuclear and particle physicists who must deal with higher energy phenomena, relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory provide the tools for their calculations, without having to think about which is more real--fields or particles. Both theories are fully materialistic and constitute triumphs for Democritean atomism.
In short, quantum physics has not done away with matter. Matter can be defined as stuff that kicks back when you kick it. When you kick a rock, it kicks back. And when you kick an electron, it kicks back. And that's no lie.
This is what happens when you look at multiple sources and not just the ones that back your claim.
Oh, and did you notice? He said go kick a rock. I love it when people quote me. :biggrin:
Quote from: stromboli on April 18, 2014, 07:05:55 PM
If you are looking for an informed opinion that is dead on, this should qualify. Neurologist who works with brain function says Dualists are deluded and he himself is a Materialist. So Casparov, why don't you jump on "Psychology Today" and call the eminent Neurologist a liar. we'll wait. :axe:
Firstly, I'm not a Dualist. Secondly, this is the opinion of a Neurologist, not evidence. All of my arguments still stand and he has not addressed them. I am well aware that the majority of working Neurologists are Materialists, the fact that you quoted one does not change my opinion.
If this Neurologist would like to debate with me I'm all for it, but he's not here to defend himself. So make your own arguments.
Quote from: stromboli on April 18, 2014, 08:39:35 PM
In short, quantum physics has not done away with matter. Matter can be defined as stuff that kicks back when you kick it. When you kick a rock, it kicks back. And when you kick an electron, it kicks back. And that's no lie.
This is what happens when you look at multiple sources and not just the ones that back your claim.
Oh, and did you notice? He said go kick a rock. I love it when people quote me. :biggrin:
This is the opinion of some man that wrote an article, not evidence. I have presented you
peer reviewed scientific experiments with abstracts that specifically state that realism should be abandoned, and you counter with the
opinion of someone who shares your assumptions that appear in a
fancy NewsPaper.
If that man would like to debate with me I'm all for it, but he's not here to defend himself. So make your own arguments.
The "opinions" are that of a Neurologist that publishes in Psychology Today, and Victor Stenger, who is a respected Particle Theorist. Those are what we call credentials. Haven't seen yours. In any case, I'll listen to them way ahead of anything you have. So read all of those "peer reviewed" articles you like, the fact is that I looked- none of the people who wrote those articles have in any way declared themselves as Monistic whatever, and none of them have expressed any religious viewpoint whatsoever. Copy pasting doesn't prove your case any more than cherry picking the Bible for scriptures.
And like Stenger said, what you are quoting is from observations of as yet theoretical data from laboratory experiments and in no way "carved in stone" as we like to say.
Oh, but keep it going. we got to hit 31 pages or JosephPalazzo will be sad.
Quote from: stromboli on April 18, 2014, 09:48:13 PM
The "opinions" are that of a Neurologist that publishes in Psychology Today, and Victor Stenger, who is a respected Particle Theorist. Those are what we call credentials.
What you are doing is called an
Appeal To Authority, which is a logical fallacy:
A is an expert on a particular topic
A says says something about that topic
A is probably correctIf you want to debate the evidence that's one thing, but if you want to just Appeal to Authority instead then you're debating the wrong person. Go find a Fundy Xtian to debate so you can feel smart. Go make fun of Creationists or whatever it is you do, just take that trash elsewhere.
Oh, horseshit. I have been looking at everything I can find on quantum physics since the topic came up, and what it boils down to is "he said, she said" between a bunch of theoretical physicians. I can already tell you the debate will be an interminable jumble of what we have already witnessed, so have at it. Quote your brains out. there is just as much con as there is pro.
And the two people mentioned were quoted directly, not referred to. If you want an appeal to authority argument, you'll have to have it with them.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
Okay, here are the two exact same papers in presented on their actual peer reviewed journals:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html)
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221.short (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1221.short)
I presented them to you via the arXiv.org website because that is the only way you will be able to read them without subscribing to peer reviewed journals.... and now you have attempted to make this a case for dismissing the results of these experiments out of hand. :doh:
I was pointing out, Tweedledum, that just because they appeared on the arXiv.org, that doesn't mean that they are peer-reviewed, or that just because it appears on the archive and then later appears in the peer review literature, that the paper appearing on the archive is the paper that is eventually accepted for publication.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
You guys seem to be trying very hard to find a way to dismiss the scientific evidence rather than actually address it directly. I have had someone attempt to dismiss it based on "they are old" and now you trying to dismiss it because they are "preprints", neither of the claims being true. The 1999 paper the first person was referring to was conducted by Scurry and was only the first successful run of this "type" of experiment, whereas the one I have presented was done in 2012, and the other in 2007.
What I, in partucular, am dismissing is your ability to understand what has been written.
No result consistent with quantum mechanics can dismiss materialism because it is a theory about how material behaves. The bleeding fucking obvious. I'll put this in big letters since that's the only way this thing is going to get through to you:
Quantum mechanics is a theory about the material in the universe. It is a materialistic theory. No result consistent with quantum mechanics can undermine materialism.This is why no blabbering along the lines of "quantum mechanics disproves materalism" will ever be taken seriously by us, and that every woo pusher using QM as a bludgeon will only get a response of rolling eyes.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
"We want facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions." - Jessamyn West
That quote applies more to you than to us, I'm afraid. You have taken no time to familiarize yourself with the background of what quantum mechanics is all about, and why it works the way it does. As such, you are ill equipped to talk about anything happening on the bleeding edge of the field, and instead of taking away the real, exciting discoveries (reality is wierder than we imagined) and instead reading into it what you want to believe (that quantum mechanics disproves materialism).
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
It is you who are mistaken kind sir. The experiment I provided, and even the one successfully completed in 1999 which is called the Quantum Eraser Experiment was constructed specifically to test this theory of yours.
Again, only because you are reading woo into quantum mechanics. The results are consistent with quantum mechanics, but it won't undermine materialism, because quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.
In truth, the Quantum Eraser Experiment is nothing more than a dressed-up Bell's Paradox apparatus. While informative, if you can accept that you can influence the correlation between two widely separated beams, what happens in the Quantum Eraser Experiment isn't so strange. I say 'correlation' quite deliberately, and I'll explain later why this is significant later.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
They run the test with measuring devices that are capable of erasing the information after they have recorded it.
The "measuring devices" used are atoms, themselves quantum systems. Let's keep that in mind for later.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
So they shoot the electrons at the slits, the measuring devices record the which-path information by "physically interacting" with the particle as you claim, and then the electron arrives at the back slid.
I have very little doubt at this point that you don't have the slightest clue to what I "claim."
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
Now before they "observe" the results of the experiment, they erase the information that was recorded by the measuring devices. This means that they no longer have the which-path information because they erased it, but the measuring devices still "physically interacted" with the particle as you rightly say it had to. So the result should be, because the "physical interaction" happened, even though they erased the information it recorded, they should still get a particle patter rather than a wave patter. Right? Well guess what? THEY DONT.
As predicted by quantum mechanics. Yet your discription rams right up against a core principle of quantum mechanics. You said, they "erased the information [the detector atoms] recorded", but in quantum mechanics, you
can't erase information. If you could, the universe would instantly become a broth of superheated particles in a fraction of a second. So, no erasure of information for you.
So what was erased? The influence of the atoms. But the only way to erase their influence is to arrange things such that the probability amplitudes of the experiment on the other side looks just like the atoms weren't there at all. This is possible to do in a quantum system because atoms are quantum in nature, and as such, they were ensnarled in this entanglement malarky that affects all quantum mechanical objects. Nothing had actually been measured yet. The so-called welcher-weg information of those atoms had not yet been observed, and so the correlation on the other side reflected that.
Now, why am I saying 'correlation,' and not 'information?' Because while quantum mechanics will allow you to say very precise things about the statistics of what two widely separated ends of a coherent system will do, it will not tell you what any individual particle will do. You only find these cases of "spooky action at a distance" when you bring all the parts of the observation together, using ordinary lightspeed means, and look at all the data as a whole. These effects cannot be used to send information backward in time or to create an ansible â€" you only know something interesting has happened when you swap notes, when the other fellow's light cone has reached you.
Sorry, while the Quantum Eraser Experiment does show us that reality is stranger than we thought, it's still there, kicking us in the shins and laughing at us.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
This experiment conclusively proved that the "physical interaction" is not the cause of collapse,
Funny, I didn't mengion anything about physical interaction causing a "collapse" of anything. I
said that all observation is physical interaction, and as such expecting an observation of a quantum event to not influence that event is silly. I wasn't specific on the influence. That it would be a "collapse" is your sorry attemt to stuff words in my mouth.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
The very experiments I presented to you are the one's that disprove the claim you are making. It would be very convenient for you as a materialist if measuring devices themselves caused collapse just by "physical interaction" because this would leave realist Materialism intact, but this has been conclusively proven to not be the case. Therefore, you are wrong sir.
Funny that an event happening according to quantum mechanics, a materialist theory, would undermine materialism.
Oh wait. That's just you reading into the paper what you want it to say.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
Now I'm sure I can expect you to completely disregard all of the scientific experimentation and the conclusive results that contradict your desired preconception about reality in order to preserve your world view, and that is fine, do what you have to do in order feel secure in your beliefs, but know that what you believe is not consistent with science, nor philosophy.
Look chum, the only thing I'm disregarding is
your interpretation of what these quantum experiments mean for materialism. I actually understand the paper as written, and I see that it does no such thing, and the only thing I reject is your interpretation.
It would be rather hypocritical of some to ask me to put an end to this when so many are obviously enjoying the argument. Until that time, this may well head into the 50.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 10:01:11 PM
What you are doing is called an Appeal To Authority, which is a logical fallacy:
A is an expert on a particular topic
A says says something about that topic
A is probably correct
If it weren't for the underlined word, you would be correct in that this was a fallacy. But an appeal to authority in and of itself is not. If misused, it can
lead to a fallacy, but in and of itself the appeal to authority is not.
The key word there is "probably" â€" the sylogism is
statistical in nature. It's not meant to be taken as correct in all cases. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt to what it implies.
So boo to you for misidentifying a fallacy. In the way strom uses the argument from authority, it is not. The appeal to authority, correctly used, is a powerful argument. After all, that he's probably right when an expert speaks about his field is the reason he is considered an
expert, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: aitm on April 18, 2014, 10:41:37 PM
It would be rather hypocritical of some to ask me to put an end to this when so many are obviously enjoying the argument. Until that time, this may well head into the 50.
Everyone needs a chewtoy once in a while. As a dog lover, you should realize this. :wink2:
Quote from: aitm on April 18, 2014, 10:41:37 PM
It would be rather hypocritical of some to ask me to put an end to this when so many are obviously enjoying the argument. Until that time, this may well head into the 50.
Lol aitm. far be it from me to ever call you a hypocrite. But I gotta admit, this is the equivalent of bouncing a tennis ball off a brick wall. :biggrin:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 18, 2014, 10:32:08 PM
I was pointing out, Tweedledum, that just because they appeared on the arXiv.org, that doesn't mean that they are peer-reviewed, or that just because it appears on the archive and then later appears in the peer review literature, that the paper appearing on the archive is the paper that is eventually accepted for publication.
OH WOW thanks for pointing that out to me. You're a pal. What would I have done without this knowledge that I already had? Thanks bud.
QuoteQuantum mechanics is a theory about the material in the universe. It is a materialistic theory. No result consistent with quantum mechanics can undermine materialism.
LOL Okay well first of all.... Quantum Mechanics is not a "theory," it is a branch of Physics. Perhaps you were thinking of "Quantum Theory" but that is not a "materialist theory" either.
It is a means to test and accurately describe what we observe. It makes no philosophical claims about reality on its own, it just gives us evidence with which we can do so. Quantum Mechanics itself does not necessitate Materialism. Your sentence only makes sense when you first assume materialism and then start performing Quantum Experiments with that assumption in mind.
If Materialism states that actions in the future cannot effect the past, but quantum mechanics shows that this happens in our reality. Then which is wrong? Materialism or Quantum Mechanics, because they do not agree.
If Materialism states that as Newton put it: "It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact", but Quantum Mechanics shows that this does in fact happen in our reality, then which is wrong? Materialism or Quantum Mechanics? Because they do not agree on this matter.
"For the relative independence of spatially distant things (A and B), this idea is characteristic: an influence on A has no immediate effect on B; this is known as the “Principle of Local Actionâ€. - Einstein
The Principle of Local Action is a requirement of a Material Universe, and yet Quantum Mechanics shows it does not hold water in our Universe, so which is wrong? materialism or Quantum Mechanics? Because they do not agree.
Materialism requires that material objects continue to exist unaffected whether or not an observer is present. Materialism says that we live in an observer-independent reality. But quantum mechanics shows that the reality we live in is conclusively observer
dependent, and what we observe does not exist as anything resembling a material object when an observer is not observing, so which is wrong? Materialism or quantum mechanics? Because they do not agree.
"Quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination." - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310010.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310010.pdf)
Materialism requires that material objects cannot exist in two places at once, yet quantum mechanics shows that is happens all the time in our reality. So which is wrong? materialism or quantum mechanics? Because they do not agree.
So you blindly assert that Quantum Mechanics "is a materialistic theory. No result consistent with quantum mechanics can undermine materialism" and yet almost every result consistent with quantum mechanics is not consistent with Materialism. How do you reconcile the two? What are you saying?
Even results from Quantum Mechanics that are inconsistent with Materialism are now somehow consistent with Materialism because of the way you have defined Quantum Mechanics? That makes absolutely
zero sense.
You cant just assert something and then magically make it true. That's not how this works. Let me show you something: This is how Quantum Mechanics could disprove Materialism:
When Quantum Mechanics generates results that show that reality behaves in a way inconsistent with Materialism. :surprised: Crazy isn't it?
QuoteThe results are consistent with quantum mechanics, but it won't undermine materialism, because quantum mechanics is a materialistic theory.
That's like saying, "All scientific results are consistent with Creationism and no scientific result will ever undermine Creationism because all Science is ultimately a theory of Creationism."
Do you now get a glimpse of what you are actually doing? You can't just define yourself correct. :rotflmao:
QuoteYou said, they "erased the information [the detector atoms] recorded", but in quantum mechanics, you can't erase information. If you could, the universe would instantly become a broth of superheated particles in a fraction of a second. So, no erasure of information for you.
Dude, what are you seriously talking about? Are you saying that the Quantum Eraser Experiment doesn't actually erase the which-path information? This is absolute nonsense....
A measuring device can record which slit the particle went through, and then destroy that information before anyone looks at it.... and even though the measuring device "measured' we still get a wave pattern. You are basically arguing that the experiment that was run, wasn't actually run, "because you can't erase information in Quantum Mechanics." And that's insanity. Go tell that to the scientists who actually conducted the experiment and got it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
In principle what you are saying is true, that "no information can be destroyed" but this is completely irrelivent when I am saying that the measuring device can erase it's which-path information after a measurement so that it becomes unobtainable to the scientists. come on dude...
QuoteSo what was erased? The influence of the atoms. But the only way to erase their influence is to arrange things such that the probability amplitudes of the experiment on the other side looks just like the atoms weren't there at all. This is possible to do in a quantum system because atoms are quantum in nature, and as such, they were ensnarled in this entanglement malarky that affects all quantum mechanical objects. Nothing had actually been measured yet. The so-called welcher-weg information of those atoms had not yet been observed, and so the correlation on the other side reflected that.
A measuring device detects which slit the particle went through and then erases that information, and every single time we get a wave pattern. There are zero instances when the measuring device records the which-path information and erases it that we actually get a particle pattern. Zero.
If we run the exact same experiment, but tell the measuring devices to "not erase" the which-path information, we get the particle pattern. Every single time. Absolutely no change is made with how the measuring device detects the particle's which path information.
The physical interaction is exactly the same in both instances. The only difference is whether we have the which-path information or erased it.
QuoteNow, why am I saying 'correlation,' and not 'information?' Because while quantum mechanics will allow you to say very precise things about the statistics of what two widely separated ends of a coherent system will do, it will not tell you what any individual particle will do. You only find these cases of "spooky action at a distance" when you bring all the parts of the observation together, using ordinary lightspeed means, and look at all the data as a whole. These effects cannot be used to send information backward in time or to create an ansible â€" you only know something interesting has happened when you swap notes, when the other fellow's light cone has reached you.
If you have two particles that are entangled, you can move them apart, let's say one is on earth and the other is on mars. Because they are entangled we know that one's spin is "up" and the other's is "down", they cannot both be "up" or both be "down" because they are entangled. In quantum mechanics, we can prove that they are both in superposition before we observe them, meaning that neither has decided yet whether it is "up" or "down". But as soon as we measure one, they both instantly collapse. Somehow the one on mars knew that we observed the one on earth
instantaneously, and if we found the one on earth was "up", then we will see that the one on mars is "down".
This is not allowable in a Material Universe."It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact... so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." - Newton
Quote
Funny that an event happening according to quantum mechanics, a materialist theory, would undermine materialism.
There you go defining yourself correct again.
QuoteOh wait. That's just you reading into the paper what you want it to say.
Look chum, the only thing I'm disregarding is your interpretation of what these quantum experiments mean for materialism. I actually understand the paper as written, and I see that it does no such thing, and the only thing I reject is your interpretation.
No sir, you are not just rejecting my interpretation, you are also rejecting the interpretation of the Quantum Physicists who actually conducted the experiment.
"Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."
"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Go tell them they are wrong because even if the results contradict Materialism, they don't contradict Materialism, because Quantum Mechanics is a "materialist theory." :rotflmao:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 18, 2014, 10:47:03 PM
If it weren't for the underlined word, you would be correct in that this was a fallacy. But an appeal to authority in and of itself is not. If misused, it can lead to a fallacy, but in and of itself the appeal to authority is not.
The key word there is "probably" â€" the sylogism is statistical in nature. It's not meant to be taken as correct in all cases. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt to what it implies.
So boo to you for misidentifying a fallacy. In the way strom uses the argument from authority, it is not. The appeal to authority, correctly used, is a powerful argument. After all, that he's probably right when an expert speaks about his field is the reason he is considered an expert, for fuck's sake.
Here is the exact form of the argument from authority as stromboli used it:
B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect.
Therefore, B's evidence is false.This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, it merely notes that there is disagreement with it.
Quote from: aitm on April 18, 2014, 10:41:37 PM
It would be rather hypocritical of some to ask me to put an end to this when so many are obviously enjoying the argument. Until that time, this may well head into the 50.
I for one am quite enjoying it. I feel like Neo fighting off a thousand Agent Smith's at the same time.
Aitm, would you be willing to Moderate a Formal Debate if one goes down?
Dude, you're talking to yourself. Here, work on this one. :biggrin:
Argument from Quantum Physics
P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent â€" all-observing â€" being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
Oh, and this. Your much vaunted double slit experiment might actually disprove god.
Quantum Mechanics: Can the double slit experiment disprove the existence of a god?
In the double slit experiment, the act of observing seems to influence the results. So we can say that in this experiment the process was 'observed' and in that experiment it was not.
The traditional view of a god is that he sees everything. Given that we can say an experiment was not observed, does this disprove this aspect of a god?
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 10:01:11 PM
What you are doing is called an Appeal To Authority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6YfJZ9hxLQ
Citing a source of information and stating how much stock you put into it is not an appeal to authority.
since we're still going here....
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130206173137AACPHHg
"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."
- Lawrence Krauss, physicist
It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the universe or of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up an answer (such as a god) and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades scientists have discovered some good answers. Of course, a scientific explanation is more complex than simply saying, "God did it."
Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.
There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.
In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy â€" with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.
I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is â€" absurd."
For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). And, see the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps."
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5...
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/every...
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...
http://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-univ...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.h...
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/or...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/0...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/JesusExist.h...
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/jesu...
Aand like a whole bunch of links and shit. :biggrin:
And the following people, according to Casparov, are wrong:
Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.
Damn. that is a whole lot of wrong. :sad2:
@Gasparov,
It looks like you are very busy answering the many posts addressed to you, I can understand that you might have overlooked my post OR maybe you don't want to answer it as you have no answers. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's my post again:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.msg1009935#msg1009935 .
Care to answer?
On another note: page 24, we are nearing the stated goal of 31 pages as I proudly predicted. LOL.
QuoteAitm, would you be willing to Moderate a Formal Debate if one goes down?
I am afraid that I have had only one formal debate in my life back around 73-74. I have no memory of how they work, and frankly my friend, have no interest in reading the to and fro's. If you find someone, I am sure we can find somebody willing.
Gasparov, go play in traffic and see if you are a material object! Your having a mind doesn't prove you exist, it only proves you exist as a material object first that causes the illusion of a soul. The very fact that you never see a mind existing without a material body proves the mind is an illusion, and not actually real anymore than a thought is material and not an emerging property of a material body functioning. We do create the world around us from information from it, but that world is still made of particles of energy which are material in nature and not spiritual. There are many things in the world that are not material, but that does not prove material doesn't exist, or that the non material things make the world we live in that we all agree is real. The real question is what does real or reality mean. A thought is real, but it still requires a material body to exist. But a body doesn't require a thought to exist, even if it is in God's mind. You are hung up on mentalism that is putting the cart in front of the horse, a philosophy discarded by science. Solitary
"There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes."
As far as I'm concerned, that's it. The fact that men working in the fields from which Casparov has largely drawn his evidence can postulate a godless universe, anything beyond that is just posturing.
I have other stuff I haven't posted on here yet, but it amounts to the same thing. After all this, god by definition is supernatural and beyond understanding. Any aspect of a god that we understand therefore renders it not supernatural and not a god.
And the "intelligent universe" thing I brought up here about 4 years ago. Same result, can't prove it.
Quantum mechanics is the study of matter, you stupid fucking asshole. To say quantum mechanics contradicts materialism is like saying that German is not a language because it's not like English. German is a language, only a different language from English. Quantum mechanics is still the study of the material, only on a level where matter behaves in ways differently than it does on the macro level human beings are familiar with.
Now, do the world a favor and choke to death on your own considerable stupidity and dishonesty. Assholes like you are always pointing at Quantum mechanics and going, "Look! It's jesus! Herp! Derp! Derp!" You are wrong. You are ignorant. You are stupid. You are speaking on things you know nothing about and expect to be taken as an expert.
Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 19, 2014, 11:49:19 AM
Quantum mechanics is the study of matter, you stupid fucking asshole. To say quantum mechanics contradicts materialism is like saying that German is not a language because it's not like English. German is a language, only a different language from English. Quantum mechanics is still the study of the material, only on a level where matter behaves in ways differently than it does on the macro level human beings are familiar with.
Now, do the world a favor and choke to death on your own considerable stupidity and dishonesty. Assholes like you are always pointing at Quantum mechanics and going, "Look! It's jesus! Herp! Derp! Derp!" You are wrong. You are ignorant. You are stupid. You are speaking on things you know nothing about and expect to be taken as an expert.
Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.
Lol. :biggrin:
I bet I read 20 different "interpretations" of that double slit experiment. Theist websites are pronouncing it a proof because it proves, quote "there has to be an observer, therefore Gawd!" And non theist interpretations fall down between indeterminate and proof that the observer precludes god, yada yada. In other words, any conclusion is based on the outlook of the interpreter.
But as I said in my previous post, the fact that scientists who work with quantum physics can describe a universe and give reason for its creation without the need for a god is it. That is conclusive enough for me.
Once again we have a case of someone trying to bend the facts to meet their beliefs. No different than Creationists or any other bunch of theists.
Quantum mechanics proves something can exist even if we can't see it or understand it----proof God exists dumb atheists. Bought to you from the world of Deepak Chopra. He! He! Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.
No, we're not actually. We're back to the concept of solipsism -
which you reject. As you reject solipsism, there's no
fucking reason to debate solipsism. Yes, solipsism is plausible - but nothing
fucking implies it, and until something does, we operate in this world as it is. The brain existing and materialism are two
fucking different things by your own
fucking definition, you
dishonest fuck.
Shit exists =//= Materialism.
Let's explain this to you: Your definition of materialism is that only matter(and hopefully: energy) exists, and that everything in this universe is run by natural processes.
That has nothing to do with shit existing.
So, disregarding solipsism, which is an unsupported (but possible, YAY me - center of the universe, you lovely fictional person) notion, means that brains exist in our reality. Now, very simply, we cut out the brain, and observe it, or we scan your brainwaves, etc. There, proven. 100% certtainty without the framework we have.
QuoteHow do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else.
Which is how we know they exist. :)
QuoteEven if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind.
Unless we live in a sci-fi and/or fantasy world, eh, no, you'd be dead.
QuoteUntil you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)
But ... I'm not a materialist ... Well, unless you are one as well I suppose. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you?
Bu
Quotet now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."
So I will give you an analogy: The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.
Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?
Correct.
QuoteNo. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are immaterial, they are INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.
I have actually done this experiment with CDs. Placing it into my computer and copying the songs kept the damage. I think an example closer to human beings would be VHS/Cassettes though.
QuoteIf you have a program that runs on a computer, if you cut the computer in half the program will not longer run properly, but this is not proof that the computer and the program are the same thing!!! (unless of course you are a materialist :whistle:)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Can you truly be for real?
A program and a computer is not the same thing, however, the program runs on the computer. Your crazy "dogma" makes you see everything backwards. The analogy would be semi-correct in the sense that the program is running on a computer, but your dumb example is ... well, dumb.
The brain creates the mind (or so it appears and is demonstrated to be). The computer does not create the program. See the fucking error, Sherlock? Do you see it? The program is made by a programmer and randomly placed onto the computer. It could have run on a different fucking program - and would have been added by an external source. Nothing implies an external source in regards to brains/minds.
Your examples also shows your main position wrong, which is brilliant. It shows that the program can be physically damaged. Remove part of it and the part will be gone. It is not a part of this individual program anymore and the program will be operating differently.
QuoteNow lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind.
We have, sans solipsism. And to repeat: IF SOLIPSISM IS TRUE, EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE.
This is why you are such a fake, dishonest fuck. You have removed the possibility for evidence to exist. Which is handy when you have a fake fucking agenda. But if you do not accept that evidence for anything can exist - GET THE FUCK OUT. Discussing with you is then MEANINGLESS.
QuoteYour own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.
Does that mean you don't exist and that I am the sole person existing, or does it mean that you accept that everyone here exists. If so: WE DEMAND EVIDENCE!!!
Seriously though, you are a dishonest asshole. Go fuck yourself.
This was cathartic and wonderful. :)
Can we restrict theists to comic sans font, please?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 19, 2014, 06:52:24 PM
Can we restrict theists to comic sans font, please?
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 18, 2014, 08:25:52 AM
You missed the boat. I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about, "how do you know", which a totally different matter. I could be conscious, living in a totally dark room. I have no way of knowing what's happening. Am I in a prison? Am I in a rocketship travelling from star to star? Am I alive? and so on. I am conscious, but I know zilch. So when you make the assertion, " I have proof that I exist" that is a belief which is unproven.
I will state this several different ways to clarify my point:
If you are in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that you are conscious, then the only true statement you can make is "I exist".
If I am in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that I am conscious, then the only true statement that I can make is "I exist."If I show up in your dark room, and claim to you that "I exist". You can doubt this, because I cannot prove it to you. (which i think is the point you were making) But you still have proof that "you exist" therefore when you say the statement "I exist" you say it with absolute certainty. (which is the point I was making)
The statement "I exist" is made with absolute proof when you say it, but if I show up to you with the assertion, "I have proof that I exist", this is not absolutely true for you, because you can deny that I exist. But you cannot deny that you exist. Therefore, the statement "I exist," when you are the one making it, is the only absolute certainty you can ever have.
QuoteThe difference in my scenario with what we experience is that in our daily experience we can see and go outside the dark room, and investigate what's out there. We see trees, cats, tables, etc. and we can ask, are these things made up of the same stuff as I am made of?
You know that you exist. Further, you know that images and sensations appear in your awareness. To observe these sensations and claim that they exist externally and independent of you as objective material objects, is an assumption that you then make. We do not perceive the world directly (The Veil of Perception Problem), therefore we cannot conclude that we are perceiving external objective Material objects without making an unjustified assumption.
QuoteFurther investigation reveals we are all made of the same stuff which we can label matter/energy. But now you ask, what if we are in a simulation? Then we are back to the intial scenario. Unless we can move outside that simulation, we have no way of knowing what's out there. If there is an immaterial world, it is beyond our investigative abilities and we are wasting our time speculating about it.
Upon further investigation we find that matter is 99.999999% empty space. Upon even further investigation we find that the 0.00000001% of matter that is
not empty space isn't material either, it is an Ivan Value in a Wave Equation. An Ivan Value in a Wave Equation is a figment of our imagination, not a material object.
To assert that "we are the all made of the same stuff which we label matter/energy" is to identify yourself with what you perceive. This is a philosophical error: I perceive that which I am.
If you think you are your body you are wrong. You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body,
you are that which perceives your body. You cannot look outside of your self and claim that what you perceive is you, because you are always going to be
that which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived.
You are awareness itself. (which is immaterial) Reality is fundamentally information which we interpret as perceptions and sensations. (information is immaterial) The only thing that is real is the resulting culmination of information and awareness, ergo: Experience. (experience also is an immaterial concept)
There is no need and no basis for material objects in this picture of reality, therefore Monistic Idealism entails.
I submit that it is better to work to understand how the experiments are actually performed and what the results actually are then to argue over other people's opinions about what quantum mechanics means. Once you truly come to understand what is being tested and what the results are, you can then form your own informed conclusion about the ramifications.
I present here a trusted source for an explanation of certain experiments and their results. Like a good experimental scientist, Aspect does not offer his opinion on the ramifications of these experiments, but leaves that up to us. Enjoy.
Quote"The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality." - Niels Bohr
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
If you think you are your body you are wrong. You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body, you are that which perceives your body. You cannot look outside of your self and claim that what you perceive is you, because you are always going to be that which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived.
Am I not perceiving my perception as well? As I cannot be what I perceive, by your definition, I can not be that which perceives either - by your definition - as I perceive it.
See how none of your logic works?
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 11:46:11 PM
LOL Okay well first of all.... Quantum Mechanics is not a "theory," it is a branch of Physics.
No, quantum mechanics is a
theory, not a branch of physics. The branch of physics is particle physics, or high-energy physics.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 11:46:11 PM
It is a means to test and accurately describe what we observe.
Of material things we are oberving, to wit,
subatomic particles. Hence, it is a materialistic theory â€" it assumes what you are talking about are material objects. Subatomic particles are real enough. If enough gamma rays zip through you, you die of radiation poisoning.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 11:46:11 PM
If Materialism states that actions in the future cannot effect the past,
IF IF IF! There's
nothing about materialism that says that time machines aren't (theoretically) possible, which would do exactly as you state â€" allow actions in the future to affect (not effect) the past. You are not arguing against materalism. You are arguing against something
you made up and
call materialism.
I've had enough of your bullshit.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 20, 2014, 08:29:56 AM
No, quantum mechanics is a theory, not a branch of physics. The branch of physics is particle physics, or high-energy physics.
Of material things we are oberving, to wit, subatomic particles. Hence, it is a materialistic theory â€" it assumes what you are talking about are material objects. Subatomic particles are real enough. If enough gamma rays zip through you, you die of radiation poisoning.
IF IF IF! There's nothing about materialism that says that time machines aren't (theoretically) possible, which would do exactly as you state â€" allow actions in the future to affect (not effect) the past. You are not arguing against materalism. You are arguing against something you made up and call materialism.
I've had enough of your bullshit.
Yeah. dude doesn't get it. Like showed up late to the party with cheap beer. Sad.
Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 01:52:58 AM
I submit that it is better to work to understand how the experiments are actually performed and what the results actually are then to argue over other people's opinions about what quantum mechanics means. Once you truly come to understand what is being tested and what the results are, you can then form your own informed conclusion about the ramifications.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ca/ca1bb68c8ee4b31e8731ceae566792e507c18be7655c8da3c883578a2f0c5500.jpg)
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
I will state this several different ways to clarify my point:
If you are in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that you are conscious, then the only true statement you can make is "I exist".
If I am in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that I am conscious, then the only true statement that I can make is "I exist."
But you do not know HOW you exist: you could exist as a material being, or as a fictionasl character in a comic book, or as an illusion from brains-in-vats or in a matrix as in the movie of that title. You won't know until you do some further investigation.
QuoteIf I show up in your dark room, and claim to you that "I exist". You can doubt this, because I cannot prove it to you. (which i think is the point you were making) But you still have proof that "you exist" therefore when you say the statement "I exist" you say it with absolute certainty. (which is the point I was making)
I have the same problem as you do: I don't know How I exist.
QuoteUpon further investigation we find that matter is 99.999999% empty space.
Space cannot exist without matter. It is parts and parcel of our world. In no way does it deny the existence of matter, quite the contrary.
QuoteUpon even further investigation we find that the 0.00000001% of matter that is not empty space isn't material either, it is an Ivan Value in a Wave Equation. An Ivan Value in a Wave Equation is a figment of our imagination, not a material object.
I have no idea of what you're talking about.
QuoteTo assert that "we are the all made of the same stuff which we label matter/energy" is to identify yourself with what you perceive. This is a philosophical error: I perceive that which I am.
You are stating it as an error, but you haven't demonstrated it. In fact, I find that I am made of atoms which were fabricated in stars that exploded millions of years ago, demonstrating that I'm made of the same stuff as all other forms of matter.
QuoteIf you think you are your body you are wrong.
An unproven statement, which undelines you have an agenda that can't be proven, so the only way out for you is to make blatant unproved statement.
QuoteYou perceive your body, therefore you are not your body,
Why not???? My eyes see my feet. Sure my eyes are not my feet. But there are no laws in nature that forbids a part to see the whole.
Quoteyou are My mind is that which perceives my body.
FIFY
QuoteYou are awareness itself.
Without my brain, I cannot be aware, and that's a proven fact.
QuoteReality is fundamentally information which we interpret as perceptions and sensations.
Agree.
Quote(information is immaterial)
Totally disagree. Information comes in the form of energy, which is matter ( E = mc
2QuoteThe only thing that is real is the resulting culmination of information and awareness, ergo: Experience. (experience also is an immaterial concept)
Information is real, but not the only thing, as it is a form of energy, then everything made up of matter/energy is real.
Wow 25 pages of this shit.
Evidence:
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
Proof:
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
the act of testing or making trial of anything; tests.
From the beginning, anything you provide would have to be fairly materialistic in nature, because it has to be understood and agreed upon by everyone. If everything we put here you recect because of your philosophical stance, then the discussion is meaningless from the start, because you simply reject everything we offer as proof.
Your "evidence" has been a series of if/then statements and reference to some experiments in Quantum Physics, which have been interpreted several different ways by Particle Physicists, some claiming it proof somehow god exists, and others that it disproves god. I don't see any way you can prove your statements, because they are outside of any material form we can agree upon.
You claim you can prove the existence of a god, but you can't even define it. Supernatural means not definable or quantifiable by natural means. So even if you describe something, you can't know if what you are describing is real. You can't prove something if you can't identify what you are proving.
Theory is not fact until it is tested and can be shown through experimentation to be real.
God does not have to have created the universe.
Quote:
"A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)"
And other people such as Hawking and Krauss have slo constructed models that did not require a god to create the universe.
You can run this thing out to a hundred pages, but you'll never prove your argument, because you yourself have taken away the very definition of proof from the beginning.
And the same goes for an intelligent universe. This would certainly involve the fine tuning argument, which all of us here reject outright, so forget it.
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on April 20, 2014, 05:06:10 AM
Am I not perceiving my perception as well? As I cannot be what I perceive, by your definition, I can not be that which perceives either - by your definition - as I perceive it.
See how none of your logic works?
Look carefully at the sentence you constructed, "I can not be that which perceives... as I perceive it." You are still "that which perceives", even if you could somehow observe the act of perception itself. (which is impossible) As long as you add at the end of your sentence "as I perceive it" you are still
that which perceives. The fact that you are perceiving has not gone away, it is still very much there, even at the end of your sentence. And it remains
what you are at base, no matter what is perceived.
That which is perceiving is always one step behind what is being perceived. As soon as you have something that is "being perceived" you remain "that which is perceiving it", and therefore are one step behind it to be able to observe it.
As
the perceiver, you are always one step removed from
the perceived.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 20, 2014, 11:56:44 AM
Without my brain, I cannot be aware, and that's a proven fact.
This is not a proven fact in the same way that, to you, it is not a proven fact that I exist. You can observe that when brains stop functioning, the person who's brain it was ceases to be able to tell you that they are aware, but this is not proof that they are not aware.
It was never a proven fact that they were aware in the first place. Even when their brain is working, the only way you can know that they are truly aware is if they tell you they are, but they cannot prove it to you, you have to just
believe what they say is true without definite proof. It is possible that they are what is called a "philosophical zombie" in philosophy of mind. They could be a body and fully functioning brain with absolutely no conscious awareness. This "zombie" would still be able to tell you it was aware, and would be entirely indistinguishable from someone who truly was aware, but there is no way you can definitively PROVE one way or the other. It should be obvious then that if it cannot be proven to you that a functioning brain is in fact "aware", then it also cannot be proven that a person ceases to be aware when the brain stops functioning.
The only definitive PROOF you can have of this is if your brain stops working and you discover that you continue to be aware.
QuoteAgree.
So we agree that reality is fundamentally information.
QuoteTotally disagree. Information comes in the form of energy, which is matter ( E = mc2
But we disagree that information is immaterial. Okay cool. The hard part is done. The rest is easy:
2+2=4You have received information from the set of symbols I have provided above. This is an example of information. Now we must ask a few questions about this information:
Is the information conveyed by the symbols, equal to the symbols? No. The exact same information can be conveyed using various different symbols. I could point to two apples, add two apples, and point to the four apples and convey the same information. Instead of "2+2=4" I could write 'two plus two equals four" and convey the exact same information using entirely different symbols. Therefore, the information is not equal to the symbols.
You are receiving the information provided by me via light being projected from your computer screen in a certain pattern. Is the information equal to the pixels in your monitor? Is the information equal to the photons hitting your cornea? Is the information equal to the electrical signals passing over neural passageways in your visual cortex? Is the information equal to the matter in your brain which is representing it?
if I write 2+2=4 in the sand, is the information equal to the grains of sand? If you see 2+2=4 written in a book, is the information the piece of paper and the blots of ink? No. grains of sand, ink on paper, light from a computer monitor, all of these things are just more symbols. Symbols which are meaningless to someone who cannot interpret their meaning. The information is not equal to the symbols used to convey it.
It seems you have confused the "medium" with the "message". The medium is "e=mc
2" but the "message" is the information that is conveyed. The information is immaterial because it has no mass, no weight, no volume, etc. It is not measurable, nor quantifiable.
If I have a material object and I give it to you, I no longer have that material object. If I have a piece of information (such as 2+2=4) and I give it to you, I have not lost that piece of information. We both have it. Information is not quantifiable.
Information has none of the properties of a material object, and all of the properties of being immaterial. Therefore, information is immaterial.QuoteInformation is real, but not the only thing, as it is a form of energy, then everything made up of matter/energy is real.
Information is not fundamentally energy, energy is fundamentally information. All of reality and everything that you have ever perceived and experienced and interpreted as energy/matter is fundamentally information. Information is immaterial, awareness is immaterial, experience is immaterial, therefore Idealism entails.
You may have missed my reply on page 22, or chosen not to reply to it, I do not know which of course.
Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 12:52:23 AM
Information has none of the properties of a material object, and all of the properties of being immaterial. Therefore, information is immaterial.
When your computer prints a "1" as an output, or display a "1" on your screen, it does that through the workings of switches. If you open your computer, you're not going to see "1" anywhere. It is stored in the configuration of a bunch of open and closed switches. Similarly, when you think of "1", that is stored in the configuration made up of neurons and synapsis of your brain. With MRI, we can locate exactly where "1" is stored in your brain. We can probe that area so that it will automatically popped into your mind, we can even erase that "1" so that even if you try to recall it, you won't be able to. Sorry to rain on your parade, but information IS matter/energy. Nice try.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 21, 2014, 09:29:44 AM
When your computer prints a "1" as an output, or display a "1" on your screen, it does that through the workings of switches. If you open your computer, you're not going to see "1" anywhere. It is stored in the configuration of a bunch of open and closed switches. Similarly, when you think of "1", that is stored in the configuration made up of neurons and synapsis of your brain. With MRI, we can locate exactly where "1" is stored in your brain. We can probe that area so that it will automatically popped into your mind, we can even erase that "1" so that even if you try to recall it, you won't be able to. Sorry to rain on your parade, but information IS matter/energy. Nice try.
Yeah, but Casparov can see dead people, so- you lose! :biggrin:
I see dead people when I dream, or when I used to do drugs, you mean they weren't real? One time I even saw a horse fly, and a peanut stand. One time I got hit on the head I even saw stars, and it was day time. :razz: Solitary
Hey, we have to stop with these nonsense posts or Casparov will think we don't take him seriously. Oh wait- we don't.
I wanted to insult him, but I knew he wouldn't know I did. :shhh: Solitary
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 21, 2014, 09:29:44 AM
Nice try.
I disagree. It's not a nice try at all. It's the same tired crap we always get.
I'm reminded of that other guy who used to be on the forum (whose name I forget) who was a substance dualist who just kept spouting the same fucking bullshit and refuse to be smart about anything. Fuck these guys.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 08:00:24 PM
My contention is that information is constitutive of reality rather than objective material objects. I am a Monistic Idealist because I understand that information and consciousness are two sides of the same immaterial coin.
Because I am skeptical of Materialism does not then mean that I believe the reality we are currently perceiving will not continue to operate in the way we have observed in the past. I operate within this reality just as you do, I simply disagree on what constitutes this reality.
I think I get that, but do you realize that evidence we're in a simulation at most indicates that we're programs running on a vast computer? It is not at all the same thing as evidence that all of reality is a mental construct: such evidence is impossible in the context of immaterialism. If everything is mental, everything is an illusion, including evidence that reality is illusory.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 08:00:24 PM
Thank you for your many responses, this thread was originally just an introduction, I did not intend it to turn into a debate against the entire forum. I am very interested in the debate, however I would prefer a more structured environment.
You're very welcome. I know I can come off as snippy at times when I'm frustrated, but I don't mean it personally, I react to posts and you're always as good as your last post with me. Your intro HAS gotten out of hand and it was probably smart to open a new thread concerning a debate. Maybe this thread can die naturally now. I know it can be daunting handlling multiple posts countering yours, but I think you've done a good job of it: do you really have that much more to say on the subject?
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 08:00:24 PM
Mister Agenda, are you willing to engage in a Formal Debate with me in the Debates Section of this forum? If not, I extend this invitation to any and all who read this and are game. I am even open to having multiple debates after the first is complete.
I think you've already heard my major objections to your position, I doubt that I have much new to contribute beyond more arguing. There's only so far I can go with physics, and that physics supports you seems to be one of your major points. I would certainly like to see you debate someone who can expound more on the papers you've cited.
Would you consider breaking down your arguments into two or more debates that focus on specific contentions? Although my intuition is that idealism versus physicalism can't be decided by debate, which one makes more sense is highly subjective. I think people are physicalists, dualists, or idealists primarily for psychological reasons.
26 pages...I am so excited I almost wet myself. JoPa said 30 pages, he must be a god...Something tells me it will stop right at 30 so Joe can't be wrong eh?
:wink2:
Well, I'm no philosopher. before i came here i thought dualists were two people that shot at each other.
Quote from: aitm on April 21, 2014, 12:49:30 PM
26 pages...I am so excited I almost wet myself. JoPa said 30 pages, he must be a god...Something tells me it will stop right at 30 so Joe can't be wrong eh?
:wink2:
We'll see. You're the dude with the ban hammer, but at this point it appears Casparov is beyond reach intellectually, so it will probably just trickle and die from boredom.
Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 10:01:11 PM
What you are doing is called an Appeal To Authority, which is a logical fallacy:
A is an expert on a particular topic
A says says something about that topic
A is probably correct
If you want to debate the evidence that's one thing, but if you want to just Appeal to Authority instead then you're debating the wrong person. Go find a Fundy Xtian to debate so you can feel smart. Go make fun of Creationists or whatever it is you do, just take that trash elsewhere.
The fallacy is really misnamed, it should be called 'appeal to INAPPROPRIATE authority', but I suppose that is too long for most people. It is not a fallacy to cite an expert in the field under discussion, provided it's a field someone CAN be an expert on (there's no one correct politics for every situation that one can arrive at by scientific means, for example: which political ideals resonate with you depend on your particular experiences and values).
This:
A is an expert on a particular topic
A says says something about that topic
A is probably correctIs actually true, and trivially easy to demonstrate as such. It's a fallacy when you refer to Einstein on theological matters, but not when you cite him concerning Special Relativity, he knows a bit more about that topic than the average bear.
Quote from: stromboli on April 21, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
We'll see. You're the dude with the ban hammer, but at this point it appears Casparov is beyond reach intellectually, so it will probably just trickle and die from boredom.
judging from the response, it will not trickle and die.
Quote from: aitm on April 21, 2014, 02:02:00 PM
judging from the response, it will not trickle and die.
Yeah, you are right, Big Dog. I'm having too much fun posting on here. :biggrin:
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
Upon further investigation we find that matter is 99.999999% empty space. Upon even further investigation we find that the 0.00000001% of matter that is not empty space isn't material either, it is an Ivan Value in a Wave Equation. An Ivan Value in a Wave Equation is a figment of our imagination, not a material object.
If you think this contradicts materialism, your understanding of it is naive. Not to mention the problem of evaluating evidence you think supports your point when you maintain that reality is only a shared illusion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
If you think you are your body you are wrong. You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body, you are that which perceives your body.
You perceive you are conscious, therefore you are not your consciousness. You plan to stick with that?
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
You cannot look outside of your self and claim that what you perceive is you, because you are always going to be that which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived.
Wave goodbye to your proof of self, then. Awareness of self is pretty much what consciousness IS. If that which does the perceiving can't perceive itself, self can't be perceived, period. Do you have more to back up this contention than intuition?
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
You are awareness itself. (which is immaterial)
That awareness is immaterial is an assertion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
Reality is fundamentally information which we interpret as perceptions and sensations. (information is immaterial)
That reality is fundamentally information AND that information is immaterial are BOTH assertions.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
The only thing that is real is the resulting culmination of information and awareness, ergo: Experience. (experience also is an immaterial concept)
When you do your debate, are you just going to keep piling assertions on top of each other?
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
There is no need and no basis for material objects in this picture of reality, therefore Monistic Idealism entails.
If monistic idealism is true, monistic idealism is true. Brilliant.
Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 12:52:23 AM
So we agree that reality is fundamentally information.
I really hate when you're dishonest like this. The rest of us can get through a conversation without claiming the other person has admitted we're right about something. If they really have, let THEM declare it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
But we disagree that information is immaterial. Okay cool. The hard part is done. The rest is easy:
2+2=4
You have received information from the set of symbols I have provided above. This is an example of information. Now we must ask a few questions about this information:
Is the information conveyed by the symbols, equal to the symbols? No. The exact same information can be conveyed using various different symbols. I could point to two apples, add two apples, and point to the four apples and convey the same information. Instead of "2+2=4" I could write 'two plus two equals four" and convey the exact same information using entirely different symbols. Therefore, the information is not equal to the symbols.
Now, do a message without any medium, which you contend is the state of affairs that actually holds true.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
You are receiving the information provided by me via light being projected from your computer screen in a certain pattern. Is the information equal to the pixels in your monitor? Is the information equal to the photons hitting your cornea? Is the information equal to the electrical signals passing over neural passageways in your visual cortex? Is the information equal to the matter in your brain which is representing it?
Is the information imprinted on a medium I perceive with my senses and process with my brain? Yes.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
if I write 2+2=4 in the sand, is the information equal to the grains of sand? If you see 2+2=4 written in a book, is the information the piece of paper and the blots of ink? No. grains of sand, ink on paper, light from a computer monitor, all of these things are just more symbols. Symbols which are meaningless to someone who cannot interpret their meaning. The information is not equal to the symbols used to convey it.
Yes, symbols are abstract. Do you think that materialism can't account for abstraction? If so, what do you base that on, other than the etymology of the word 'materialism'?
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
It seems you have confused the "medium" with the "message". The medium is "e=mc2" but the "message" is the information that is conveyed. The information is immaterial because it has no mass, no weight, no volume, etc. It is not measurable, nor quantifiable.
It seems you're claiming that the message doesn't need a medium, which is what would make it actually immaterial. Perhaps you should have conveyed your message telepathically rather than through electrons. It would be much more convincing that way.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
If I have a material object and I give it to you, I no longer have that material object. If I have a piece of information (such as 2+2=4) and I give it to you, I have not lost that piece of information. We both have it. Information is not quantifiable.
If information were nonquantifiable, we could not measure it. We can. Q.E.D. Information can be reproduced by sufficiently advanced processing systems, duplicating information in your brain into my brain via a medium and series of mutually understood symbols is not unquantifiable. It is just abstract.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
Information has none of the properties of a material object, and all of the properties of being immaterial. Therefore, information is immaterial.
A short quote from Wikipedia, since you appear not to have consulted even that: "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action."
In materialism, all THINGS are composed of material (matter, energy, and space/time) and all emergent phenomena have a material cause. Nowhere does materialism imply that information, conscousness, etc. don't exist, only that they don't exist independent of material causes. Show information without a material cause and you win.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
Information is not fundamentally energy, energy is fundamentally information.
Assertion.
Quote from: Casparov on April 19, 2014, 11:55:21 PM
All of reality and everything that you have ever perceived and experienced and interpreted as energy/matter is fundamentally information. Information is immaterial, awareness is immaterial, experience is immaterial, therefore Idealism entails.
Four assertions. I would be wary of any conclusion that requires so many assertions (assumptions) be true to entail it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 12:52:23 AM
This is not a proven fact in the same way that, to you, it is not a proven fact that I exist. You can observe that when brains stop functioning, the person who's brain it was ceases to be able to tell you that they are aware, but this is not proof that they are not aware.
It was never a proven fact that they were aware in the first place. Even when their brain is working, the only way you can know that they are truly aware is if they tell you they are, but they cannot prove it to you, you have to just believe what they say is true without definite proof. It is possible that they are what is called a "philosophical zombie" in philosophy of mind. They could be a body and fully functioning brain with absolutely no conscious awareness. This "zombie" would still be able to tell you it was aware, and would be entirely indistinguishable from someone who truly was aware, but there is no way you can definitively PROVE one way or the other. It should be obvious then that if it cannot be proven to you that a functioning brain is in fact "aware", then it also cannot be proven that a person ceases to be aware when the brain stops functioning.
Or, indeed, that there was ever this thing
you call "consciousness" to begin with.
The P-zombie argument shoots itself in the foot because people who advance it cannot prove they are not P-zombies themselves, or that
anyone around them are not P-zombies. To us materialists, p-zombie/person is a distinction without a difference. To us, the behavior that you observe, that the people you see in your day to day life behave as if they were conscious down to the last detail
is what consciousness is. I know that someone else is conscious because they behave as if they were conscious; I know that I am conscious because I myself behave as if I were conscious.
Evidence is increasingly mounting that
that form of consciousness â€" the one that is provable and observable â€" is the result of specific processes within the brain.
Your kind of consciousness â€" the kind that makes a p-zombie into a person â€" is unnecessary to explain what we see, so William goes Ochkam on it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 12:52:23 AM
It seems you have confused the "medium" with the "message". The medium is "e=mc2" but the "message" is the information that is conveyed. The information is immaterial because it has no mass, no weight, no volume, etc. It is not measurable, nor quantifiable.
Ah, but we
do have a measurement for information: the
bit! So information
is quantifiable, your argument notwithstanding. The bit even has a heat equivalent to the tune of kT ln 2 joules per bit â€" one bit of information will allow you to do kT ln 2 joules of work. As such, a bit
does have energy associated with it, and hence mass and weight.
Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 12:52:23 AM
If I have a material object and I give it to you, I no longer have that material object. If I have a piece of information (such as 2+2=4) and I give it to you, I have not lost that piece of information. We both have it. Information is not quantifiable.
When people say "I gave him the file", they actually mean, "I transmitted an encoded copy of the file to them through some physical medium." The process of "giving" of information is incomparable to the process of giving of a physical thing, and as such you have once again confused a
processes for an
object. If I gave a copy of my CD to my friend, I would still have my CD myself.
"All of reality and everything that you have ever perceived and experienced and interpreted as energy/matter is fundamentally information. Information is immaterial, awareness is immaterial, experience is immaterial, therefore Idealism entails."
This is wrong. Information does not have it's own independent existence. It is always... ALWAYS dependant upon the material. No material = No information
Show us a way to hold or transmit information without any material. I dare you.
Dead people talk to him. You lose.
has this post finally fizzled out?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 23, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
has this post finally fizzled out?
No, Caspasrov is merely sharpening his considerable array of weapons to once again leap into the fray. Or not.
After having read this thread in its entirety twice, what I can safely conclude, amongst other things, is that Casparov has a serious aversion to axioms. Our existence in a material universe can be said to be axiomatic. That is to say, it is self-evident.
Every time I saw him to say materialism is an unsupported assertion, at first it was a little aggravating. Now, it is humorous.
Quote from: Berati on April 23, 2014, 06:42:15 PM
"All of reality and everything that you have ever perceived and experienced and interpreted as energy/matter is fundamentally information. Information is immaterial, awareness is immaterial, experience is immaterial, therefore Idealism entails."
This is wrong. Information does not have it's own independent existence. It is always... ALWAYS dependant upon the material. No material = No information
Show us a way to hold or transmit information without any material. I dare you.
What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information interpreted into a representation that appears within your awareness. The only way you know "material" exists, and the only reason why you have ever experienced anything "material" is because of information that you have interpreted as such.
Information and patterns of information, are what produce the reality you experience. Show me how you know a material object exists without first receiving and interpreting information.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:25:22 AMShow me how you know a material object exists without first receiving and interpreting information.
Demonstrate that it is possible for information to exist without something to produce it. Be sure and demonstrate it without using anything that is inherently material in nature, seeing as that is the entire point of your argument.
And before you say anything about "I think, therefore I am," the whole point of that statement is to say that because the information that I call "me" exists, there must be something producing it. It is absolute silliness to think it means anything else. You want to talk about appeals to authority, maybe we could start with you not making any further
irrelevant appeals.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/03/07/why-information-cant-be-the-basis-of-reality/
So what’s the problem with saying that everything comes down to information, bits, answers to our queries? First of all, as the physicist Rolf Landauer liked to say, all information is physicalâ€"that is, all information is embodied in physical things or processesâ€"but that doesn’t mean that all things physical are reducible to information. The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informedâ€"that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can’t help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too. Lacking minds to surprise and change, books and televisions and computers would be as dumb as stumps and stones. This fact may seem crushingly obvious, but it seems to be overlooked by many information enthusiasts.
The idea that mind is as fundamental as matterâ€"which Wheeler’s "participatory universe" notion impliesâ€"also flies in the face of everyday experience. Matter can clearly exist without mind, but where do we see mind existing without matter? Shoot a man through the heart, and his mind vanishes while his matter persists. As far as we know, informationâ€"embodied in things like poetry, hiphop music and cell-phone images from Libyaâ€"only exists here on Earth and nowhere else in the universe. Did the big bang bang if there was no one there to hear it? Well, here we are, so I guess it did (and saying that God was listening is cheating).
It isn't that hard.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 24, 2014, 01:02:36 AM
Demonstrate that it is possible for information to exist without something to produce it.
I thought we were arguing that information is immaterial? I must have missed when we started arguing that information exists without something to produce it... but whatever. Mathematical information such as Platonic Objects like "the cube" are not "invented" or "produced" by anything other than our minds, but of course, nothing can exist in the absence of consciousness so that shouldn't be a surprise.
Quote from: stromboli on April 24, 2014, 01:12:33 AM
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/03/07/why-information-cant-be-the-basis-of-reality/
The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informedâ€"that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can’t help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too. Lacking minds to surprise and change, books and televisions and computers would be as dumb as stumps and stones. This fact may seem crushingly obvious, but it seems to be overlooked by many information enthusiasts.
I agree that the concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed, which is why consciousness is fundamental, rather than information. I agree with every single point made above, it is not something overlooked but
necessary to my conception of reality. Consciousness and information go hand in hand. We are consciousness and reality is information, together they produce experience.
Information cannot exist in the absence of consciousness. I'm glad we agree on something so trivial.
Now to my greater point, all of reality and existence is easily explained immaterially. Materialism is an unjustified assumption clung to with the same conviction as a fundamentalist christian clings to his bible. If you let go of materialism, your entire world view crumbles, therefore you cling to it even in the face of concrete evidence that directly disproves it and even with full knowledge that it is nothing more than a glorified belief.
You can provide no argument to justify Materialism, you can merely assert that it is "self evident". To ask for evidence or proof is blasphemy. Clinging to it creates more problems than it solves. In truth, the only real problem it solves is your necessity to preserve your preconceived view of the world.
The idea that mind is as fundamental as matterâ€"which Wheeler’s "participatory universe" notion impliesâ€"also flies in the face of everyday experience. Matter can clearly exist without mind, but where do we see mind existing without matter? Shoot a man through the heart, and his mind vanishes while his matter persists. As far as we know, informationâ€"embodied in things like poetry, hiphop music and cell-phone images from Libyaâ€"only exists here on Earth and nowhere else in the universe. Did the big bang bang if there was no one there to hear it? Well, here we are, so I guess it did (and saying that God was listening is cheating).
Now read the rest of it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 01:37:52 AM
I thought we were arguing that information is immaterial? I must have missed when we started arguing that information exists without something to produce it... but whatever. Mathematical information such as Platonic Objects like "the cube" are not "invented" or "produced" by anything other than our minds, but of course, nothing can exist in the absence of consciousness so that shouldn't be a surprise.
You have not proven that consciousness is required for existence. It is, however, long since confirmed that consciousness arises from material. You can watch it happen in the womb.
Quote:
"Now to my greater point, all of reality and existence is easily explained immaterially. Materialism is an unjustified assumption clung to with the same conviction as a fundamentalist christian clings to his bible. If you let go of materialism, your entire world view crumbles, therefore you cling to it even in the face of concrete evidence that directly disproves it and even with full knowledge that it is nothing more than a glorified belief."
Evidence please, of the immaterial universe. And don't try the quantum theory route, because we've already pointed out the definition of the word theory.
You have set aside materialism as unjustified by ignoring every piece of evidence that proves it. Mind cannot exist without matter- period, end of story. Matter is material. You cannot assume the mind as separate from the brain.
Quote from: stromboli on April 24, 2014, 02:05:22 AM
Matter can clearly exist without mind, but where do we see mind existing without matter?
Please explain to me how and when matter has ever been observed existence in the absence of a mind? If it is being observed, it is because there is a mind observing it. It has been conclusively shown that matter ceases to exist in the absence of observation, in it's place we have only a wave equation which describes the probabilities of it existing in certain states when it is actually observed.
"Matter can clearly exist without a mind." this is a bald assertion in direct conflict with scientific evidence. "clearly" implies that it has been observed, but to observe postulates a mind to do the observing. NO matter has ever been observed existing, unless it was observed by a conscious mind.
QuoteShoot a man through the heart, and his mind vanishes while his matter persists. As far as we know, informationâ€"embodied in things like poetry, hiphop music and cell-phone images from Libyaâ€"only exists here on Earth and nowhere else in the universe. Did the big bang bang if there was no one there to hear it? Well, here we are, so I guess it did (and saying that God was listening is cheating).
Now read the rest of it.
The only mind you have ever "observed" as existing is your own. You have never "seen" or "observed" anyone else's mind, therefore all you know of mind is your own direct experience of it. Now ask the question: Have you ever experienced matter existing in the absence of a mind?
Evidence, dude. Evidence.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 24, 2014, 02:11:49 AM
It is, however, long since confirmed that consciousness arises from material.
Oh really?!? Is that so!? This is amazing news indeed! "confirmed" you say! "long since" you say! Well, please kind sir, I await with bated breath, please do point me in the direction of this amazing "confirmation" to which I am sadly ignorant!
You see, all this time I have thought that
The Hard Problem of Consciousness remained unsolved to this day, but alas! You say it has been solved, "long since" you say! "confirmed" you say! please enlighten me to this amazing discovery, for my entire worldview must now be entirely reconstructed. Now that it has been confirmed that The Hard Problem of Consciousness is resolved and consciousness conclusively arises from material I have no foot left to stand on, I must now convert to Materialism as I have no other choice in light of this evidence!
Please kind sir, point me in the direction of this "confirmation" of which you speak!
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:44:32 AM
Oh really?!? Is that so!? This is amazing news indeed! "confirmed" you say! "long since" you say! Well, please kind sir, I await with bated breath, please do point me in the direction of this amazing "confirmation" to which I am sadly ignorant!
You see, all this time I have thought that The Hard Problem of Consciousness remained unsolved to this day, but alas! You say it has been solved, "long since" you say! "confirmed" you say! please enlighten me to this amazing discovery, for my entire worldview must now be entirely reconstructed. Now that it has been confirmed that The Hard Problem of Consciousness is resolved and consciousness conclusively arises from material I have no foot left to stand on, I must now convert to Materialism as I have no other choice in light of this evidence!
Please kind sir, point me in the direction of this "confirmation" of which you speak!
Save the snark for when you've read the full post, because I already listed a place where you can observe the process.
Quote from: stromboli on April 24, 2014, 02:30:10 AM
Evidence please, of the immaterial universe. And don't try the quantum theory route, because we've already pointed out the definition of the word theory.
"evidence please, oh but not
that evidence, that evidence doesn't count."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
QuoteYou have set aside materialism as unjustified by ignoring every piece of evidence that proves it. Mind cannot exist without matter- period, end of story. Matter is material. You cannot assume the mind as separate from the brain.
Wow those are some bold assertions there my friend! and you even said "period, end of story" jeez I can't ague with that... of course there's
The Hard Problem of Consciousness, since you've solved it once and for all why don't you go let the rest of the scientific community know so you can claim your well deserved Nobel Prize for solving one of the greatest and longest standing problems that has ever plagued scientific inquiry?
Now what was your evidence again? Oh that's right,
Naive Realism.... yeah I reject that based on
actual evidence... sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%83%C2%AFve_realism)
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:53:12 AMThe Hard Problem of Consciousness
Has fuck all to do with this argument. "Consciousness" and its ability to think, feel, and do anything is tied to the development of the brain. If the brain is not physically capable of doing something, lo and behold, it
never manifests in one's consciousness until, miraculously, the brain becomes mature enough to acquire the process. This
fact is consistent with the theory that consciousness arises from material, and utterly
inconsistent with the theory that material arises from consciousness.
Any further questions?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 24, 2014, 03:01:49 AM
Any further questions?
Yes.
1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you
are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation. Do you base your belief in Materialism on any empirical evidence or is this just an assumption you make based on Naive Realism?
3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?
4) Do you know what
The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?
5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?
6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:36:59 AM
...
It has been conclusively shown that matter ceases to exist in the absence of observation, ...
You want to tell me all the matter in the universe is there BECAUSE we are observing it? All the galaxies we discovered weren't there before we saw them? Earth didn't exist before there were humans to observe it? Does Mars cease to exist when I'm not looking?
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:36:59 AM
...
"Matter can clearly exist without a mind." this is a bald assertion in direct conflict with scientific evidence. "clearly" implies that it has been observed, but to observe postulates a mind to do the observing. NO matter has ever been observed existing, unless it was observed by a conscious mind.
The only mind you have ever "observed" as existing is your own. You have never "seen" or "observed" anyone else's mind, therefore all you know of mind is your own direct experience of it. Now ask the question: Have you ever experienced matter existing in the absence of a mind?
Tell me: Do animals have consciousness? Do they observe the world?
Because believe me, when I die and my "mind" will be gone, worms WILL find my material body and feast on it. If You tell me animals have consciousness then provide evidence for it. If not... well it's obvious what I'm getting at.
QuoteIt has been conclusively shown that matter ceases to exist in the absence of observation, ...
Holy fucking shit I am glad I stumbled into this thread, because that is hands down one of the most moronic things I have ever read. I give you my applause, Casper... that seriously made me snort abit in laughter.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:36:59 AM
Please explain to me how and when matter has ever been observed existence in the absence of a mind? If it is being observed, it is because there is a mind observing it. It has been conclusively shown that matter ceases to exist in the absence of observation, in it's place we have only a wave equation which describes the probabilities of it existing in certain states when it is actually observed.
"Matter can clearly exist without a mind." this is a bald assertion in direct conflict with scientific evidence. "clearly" implies that it has been observed, but to observe postulates a mind to do the observing. NO matter has ever been observed existing, unless it was observed by a conscious mind.
The only mind you have ever "observed" as existing is your own. You have never "seen" or "observed" anyone else's mind, therefore all you know of mind is your own direct experience of it. Now ask the question: Have you ever experienced matter existing in the absence of a mind?
This kind of reminds me of when I was playing hide and seek with my nephew and he was trying to hide from me by closing his eyes on the basis that if he couldn't see me, I couldn't see him. Things still exist whether you're looking at them or not.
If a tree falls in the forrest with nothing to observe it, does it make a sound?
Does a bear poop in the woods?
All (unfortunately) relevant questions
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
Yes.
1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation. Do you base your belief in Materialism on any empirical evidence or is this just an assumption you make based on Naive Realism?
3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?
4) Do you know what The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?
5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?
6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?
1) Why do you have problems using google
2) Why do you not understand the definitions google gives you about Pantheism, Panentheism etc...
3) Why do you get really mad when people point out that you have problems reading the definitions google provides
4) Why can't you use google to find papers like this on pain perception disorders of consciousness
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:25:22 AM
What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information interpreted into a representation that appears within your awareness. The only way you know "material" exists, and the only reason why you have ever experienced anything "material" is because of information that you have interpreted as such.
You failed to answer the question just as you have failed to accept the burden of proof.
Show us how you can store or transmit information without any material. I dare you.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:25:22 AM
Information and patterns of information, are what produce the reality you experience.
And that information is all produced from material.
QuoteShow me how you know a material object exists without first receiving and interpreting information
.
You have proven my point. Show me how you receive or interpret information without any material... I double dare you.
Wow, the stupid.....
Mind is a CONCEPT. Explain how a concept created itself. You said you believe in evolution. Then explain how mind/ intelligience existed before humans became self aware. You are right, mind is an illusion.
And you used the same double slit experiment for evidence. Nobody can be this dense.
You are a troll, because there is no other explanation for this idiocy.
I will reveal the ultimate truth. Nothing exists without the Chuck Norris approval. Casparvov you exists because Chuck Norris says so. When Chuck Norris start claiming you don't exists. That means you really don't exist.
Right. Every solar eclipse is caused by Chuck Norris. That is Chuck norris staring at the sun, and the sun blinking.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:25:22 AM
What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information interpreted into a representation that appears within your awareness. The only way you know "material" exists, and the only reason why you have ever experienced anything "material" is because of information that you have interpreted as such.
Information and patterns of information, are what produce the reality you experience. Show me how you know a material object exists without first receiving and interpreting information.
Simple. The information you recieve is about those objects. There is no theory of information that does not have that information be
about some system under study. If "information" is not about things, then it is by definition not information. It's just noise.
In short, there is no such thing as information standing out all on its own, by definition.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:53:12 AM
"evidence please, oh but not that evidence, that evidence doesn't count."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
I've
already explained why pointing at a result consistent with a materialist theory can never undermine materialism. What about quantum mechanics is about spiritual or non-material things? QM describes the behavior of electrons, protons, photons, and the zoo of subatomic particles. It does not say anything about ghosts.
The only thing that these experiments expose is that the world defies our expectations of what matter is capable of, but nothing about materialism says that the material the world is made of cannot behave weirdly.
Anyway, you have responded to a point by restating a point that had already been killed. This is dishonest.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:25:22 AM
What you have labeled "material" is fundamentally nothing more than information Now what was your evidence again? Oh that's right, Naive Realism.... yeah I reject that based on actual evidence... sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%83%C2%AFve_realism)
Nobody here believes naive realism, you strawmanning fuck. At best, we believe scientific realism. No, the fact that quantum mechanics denies the realism of hidden variables only means that only those
unobserved hidden variables simply do not exist to constrian quantum systems, not that the entire ediface of realism is without foundation.
Again, these are dishonest tactics, and you've been shipping them for quite some time now.
@Gasparov,
Your "information is immaterial" has been debunked here:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.msg1010541#msg1010541
Please get a reality check.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 24, 2014, 06:02:05 AM
Holy fucking shit I am glad I stumbled into this thread, because that is hands down one of the most moronic things I have ever read. I give you my applause, Casper... that seriously made me snort abit in laughter.
Welcome to the 21st Century. :wink2: That you snort when you laugh is not an argument, if however you'd like to refute the conclusions of modern scientific experimentation, be my guest.
Quote from: pioteir on April 24, 2014, 03:28:54 AM
You want to tell me all the matter in the universe is there BECAUSE we are observing it? All the galaxies we discovered weren't there before we saw them? Earth didn't exist before there were humans to observe it? Does Mars cease to exist when I'm not looking?
QuoteIf a tree falls in the forrest with nothing to observe it, does it make a sound?
Does a bear poop in the woods?
All (unfortunately) relevant questions
Yes indeed, very relevant questions:
Einstein: "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?"Neils Bohr: "Can you prove to me the contrary?"Quantum Mechanics is only "weird" because it is inconsistent with Materialism which has dominated science since it's inception. Einstein and Bohr were not having this conversation for kicks and giggles, they were seriously contemplating the ramifications of Quantum Mechanics. Now because of recent scientific experiments that were impossible in their day, successfully run in 1999, 2007, 2012, and 2013 we have conclusive evidence that Bohr was correct about QM and Einstein was clinging too tightly to the assumption of Materialism.
If you want to argue about about it, argue the evidence, not your "gut instinct" or "intuition".
Quote from: Jason78 on April 24, 2014, 07:48:23 AM
Things still exist whether you're looking at them or not.
A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 11:36:29 AM
A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.
So now you speak for the entire scientific community?
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/12/12933cbdb31b6e915165ad266c66fffaacd29d06dd98ddc219496868508b627d.jpg)
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 11:34:38 AM
Yes indeed, very relevant questions:
Einstein: "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?"
Neils Bohr: "Can you prove to me the contrary?"
Quantum Mechanics is only "weird" because it is inconsistent with Materialism which has dominated science since it's inception. Einstein and Bohr were not having this conversation for kicks and giggles, they were seriously contemplating the ramifications of Quantum Mechanics. Now because of recent scientific experiments that were impossible in their day, successfully run in 1999, 2007, 2012, and 2013 we have conclusive evidence that Bohr was correct about QM and Einstein was clinging too tightly to the assumption of Materialism.
If you want to argue about about it, argue the evidence, not your "gut instinct" or "intuition".
Someone missed the followup to that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
A fatal error for the mouthpiece of the scientific community. For shame.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
Yes.
1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
I don't know that he actually has a belief in materialism, but since your declarations about the problems the experiment is supposed to pose to materialism seem to be based on a misunderstanding of materialism, someone who has actually bothered to read anything about materialism will see there is nothing to reconcile because the experiment doesn't show anything inconsistent with actual materialism, only the strawman materialism in your particular head.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation. Do you base your belief in Materialism on any empirical evidence or is this just an assumption you make based on Naive Realism?
Have you established that the ability to doubt something disqualifies it from probably existing? And you never seem to get around to addressing the issue of evidence being essentially arbitrary and illusory under monist idealism. Under monist idealism there is not even the POSSIBILITY of proof of anything AND it requires us to reject all of our sensory experiences as unreal solely because it's conceivable that they're unreal, and we know our senses aren't completely reliable...but HOW do we know that? From the evidence of our senses, which is unacceptable under your scheme.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?
To you, it seems to be a label you apply indiscriminately to anyone critical of your assertions about monist idealism.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
4) Do you know what The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?
Essentially, it's the problem of being able to know that anyone but yourself is really conscious.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?
Direct experience of it, as you're well aware.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?
No one conversing with you seems to 'believe in' materialism the way you believe in idealism. We're not convinced it's true. We're just not convinced it's false. Though frankly, you're building a good case for your alternative being poorly supported.
Quote from: Berati on April 24, 2014, 08:15:21 AM
Show us how you can store or transmit information without any material. I dare you.
QuoteShow me how you receive or interpret information without any material... I double dare you.
You assume that all information is dependent on material, yet every perception of "material" you ever have is the direct result of binary information. You interpret this information into a perception, you then assume that this perception is of an external objective material world that is independent of observation. Then you ask me to "show how you receive or interpret information without any material". But I have not made the same unnecessary assumption that you have.
In order to believe that there is "material" in the first place there was a series of binary information patterns that gave rise to the sensory information which you have interpreted as "material".... In a sly and subtle move you then assume this sensory information represents objective "material." You can only receiver information via perception, if you interpret every sensory perception you ever perceive as "material", then you are simply ignorant of the fact that no sensory perception can arise in your conscious awareness as anything other than interpreted information. A leap from the information you receive to believing that objective material objects exist independent of observation is required on your part, and it is an unjustified leap.
You do not perceive the external world directly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism)
You receive information which you interpret into a representation of the outside world. That these sensory perceptions represent a Material Observation-Independent world is an assumption with no proof, no evidence, no justification to back it up other than weak statements like, "It seams that way," "kicking rocks hurts", and "it's obvious." Other justifications just turn out to be bold assertions like, 'It is self evident!" and "Things exist when your are not looking at them!" and "Materialism is true!" Bold assertions made with no justification.
Matter is that which occupies space and possesses rest mass.
Immaterial is that which does not consist of matter, is incorporeal, occupies no space and possesses no rest mass.
Information has
zero of the qualities of matter and
all of the qualities of being immaterial. It is honestly a surprise to me that someone is attempting to define "information" as equal to "material object", but it makes no difference. We can argue this as long as you want. At best you simply mistake the "medium" for the "message". The "message" or the "data" itself is equal to the information, not the "medium" even when you assume the medium is "material".
You can keep asking me the same question over and over and say "i triple double dog dare you" but realize you are speaking to an
Idealist, not a Materialist, therefore I am unconvinced of your foundational assumption that matter produces information rather than the other way around. Every perception you ever have is the result of information.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
1) How do you reconcile your belief in Materialism with The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
That experiment has nothing to do with consciousness.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM2) While you are unable to doubt that you are conscious, you are able to doubt that material exists independent of your observation.
I'm not going to answer the question you followed this with, because the premise you're basing it off of is fucking stupid. The ability to doubt the existence of other things does not make them cease to exist. This is like the person saying that the ability to conceive of the Christian God means that it must exist: by that same logic, the Enderdragon really is waiting past a mystical gate hidden in a buried stronghold for me to come kill it and roll the end credits of the universe.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM3) Do you know what Naive Realism is?
It's a term invented by pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands. Yes, I do know what it is; no, I'm not going to waste my time with it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM4) Do you know what The Hard Problem of Consciousness is?
It's a term invented by pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands. Yes, I do know what it is; no, I'm not going to waste my time with it.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM5) Have you ever seen consciousness? If not, how do you know it exists?
I have witnessed other beings express traits consistent with my own consciousness. I can conclude, with reasonable certainty, that they have consciousness. Nothing is ever proven, of course, which is why I have always emphasized that your assertions need to be
falsifiable, not
provable.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:24:31 AM6) Why is believing in Materialism so important to you?
It's not. Falsify materialism and I will drop it in an instant.
Quote from: Icarus on April 24, 2014, 11:56:10 AM
Someone missed the followup to that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
A fatal error for the mouthpiece of the scientific community. For shame.
From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
You forgot to read the "Final remarks" section of that wikipedia page:
QuoteThe violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics. Some earlier elements that had seemed incompatible with classical pictures included complementarity and wavefunction collapse. The Bell violations show that no resolution of such issues can avoid the ultimate strangeness of quantum behavior.
The VERY EXPERIMENTS I have been presenting over and over on this thread are two of the one's that violate Bell's Inequalities.... And you then present Bell's Theorem.... sigh...
Will it reach 31????
Wow, talk about a circle jerk. the "evidence" you provided from Wikipedia is noting but a discussion of a philosophical stance, nothing more.
Your whole argument is based entirely in supposition and theory. You simply set aside anything contrary to your argument and insist it isn't evidence.
You yourself have not provided anything that can be considered as proof, and certainly have not comeclose to proving the existence of god.
Every post you have made is nothing but philosobabble. You can't prove a supernatural god because there is no way to quantify it or describe it. It has been tried for a very long time, and no one has succeeded. And you haven't even come close. And if you can disregard all the quoted, specific statements by the likes of Laurence Krauss, Victor Stenger and Sean Carol, you really are missing the point.
Your whole argument has been simply to ignore anything you disagree with and plow on with the same unproven blither.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:40:02 PM
From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
You forgot to read the "Final remarks" section of that wikipedia page:
The VERY EXPERIMENTS I have been presenting over and over on this thread are two of the one's that violate Bell's Inequalities.... And you then present Bell's Theorem.... sigh...
Excellent, that got you to respond to my post (see how frustrating it is dealing with someone who doesn't even try to make sense? Now you know how everyone on this forum feels about you). Now, back to the matter at hand: Why are you so confused about your own belief system and the contradictions of a Panentheist also being a Pantheist. Why do you think you speak for the entire scientific community? Several people on this forum are actually part of the scientific community, publish and edit papers, and you certainly don't speak for us. Many more people on this forum have a very good understanding of scientific principles, yet we all think you're bat crazy. Why is that?
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 11:36:29 AM
A bold assertion! Now can you back this statement up? Both philosophy and hard science disagree with you.
Take two accurate clocks. Synchronise them.
Leave one clock in one location. Carry one with you. After five hours return to the clock you left.
The unobserved clock will have kept time, even though it and its component parts were unobserved.
(This experiment works even if you don't carry another clock with you, it's just a lot harder to return after five hours.)
Quote from: stromboli on April 24, 2014, 12:43:04 PM
Wow, talk about a circle jerk. the "evidence" you provided from Wikipedia is noting but a discussion of a philosophical stance, nothing more.
Scientific experiments that violate Bell's Inequalities are not a "discussion of a philosophical stance", it is a concrete demonstration that Materialism is untenable. This is what we call "evidence."
QuoteYour whole argument is based entirely in supposition and theory. You simply set aside anything contrary to your argument and insist it isn't evidence.
This is the most ironic statement I have ever heard... :surprised:
Quote from: Jason78 on April 24, 2014, 01:01:16 PM
Take two accurate clocks. Synchronise them.
Leave one clock in one location. Carry one with you. After five hours return to the clock you left.
The unobserved clock will have kept time, even though it and its component parts were unobserved.
(This experiment works even if you don't carry another clock with you, it's just a lot harder to return after five hours.)
This is explained by Probability Theory, the unobserved clock exists only as probability distribution when unobserved. Because of the extremely high probability that the clock should continue to have worked properly and recorded time accurately, the probability wave will collapse into this result when it is observed again. This is not proof that the unobserved clock existed as a discrete material object independent of observation, it is only proof that probability prefers consistency.
Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:20:55 PM
You assume that all information is dependent on material, yet every perception of "material" you ever have is the direct result of binary information. You interpret this information into a perception, you then assume that this perception is of an external objective material world that is independent of observation. Then you ask me to "show how you receive or interpret information without any material". But I have not made the same unnecessary assumption that you have.
What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion, then using your conclusion to prove your assumption.
You said you wanted to proceed logically but your not doing that.
QuoteIn order to believe that there is "material" in the first place there was a series of binary information patterns that gave rise to the sensory information which you have interpreted as "material"....
ANd where was that information kept? In a ghosts head?
Again, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.
QuoteIn a sly and subtle move you then assume this sensory information represents objective "material."
There is nothing sly or subtle about "I feel therefore its real" This is the most logical place to go right after "I think therefore I am"
Proof of this is that you always do and always will continue to behave exactly as if it were true. Your actions speak louder than your words.
QuoteYou can only receiver information via perception, if you interpret every sensory perception you ever perceive as "material", then you are simply ignorant of the fact that no sensory perception can arise in your conscious awareness as anything other than interpreted information. A leap from the information you receive to believing that objective material objects exist independent of observation is required on your part, and it is an unjustified leap.
You receive information which you interpret into a representation of the outside world.
And where do you think the information is coming from? A ghosts head?
Again, I will continue to ask you to show an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.
QuoteThat these sensory perceptions represent a Material Observation-Independent world is an assumption with no proof, no evidence, no justification to back it up other than weak statements like, "It seams that way," "kicking rocks hurts", and "it's obvious." Other justifications just turn out to be bold assertions like, 'It is self evident!" and "Things exist when your are not looking at them!" and "Materialism is true!" Bold assertions made with no justification.
No, not bold assertions, logical conclusions based on our day to day, minute to minute, moment to moment experience.
QuoteMatter is that which occupies space and possesses rest mass
.
And has the ability to store and transmit information.
QuoteImmaterial is that which does not consist of matter, is incorporeal, occupies no space and possesses no rest mass.
And has
no ability to store and transmit information.
QuoteInformation has zero of the qualities of matter and all of the qualities of being immaterial. It is honestly a surprise to me that someone is attempting to define "information" as equal to "material object", but it makes no difference. We can argue this as long as you want. At best you simply mistake the "medium" for the "message". The "message" or the "data" itself is equal to the information, not the "medium" even when you assume the medium is "material".
Again, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.
QuoteYou can keep asking me the same question over and over and say "i triple double dog dare you" but realize you are speaking to an Idealist, not a Materialist, therefore I am unconvinced of your foundational assumption that matter produces information rather than the other way around. Every perception you ever have is the result of information.
And I will continue to ask the same question over and over until you understand why you are unable to give an answer or until you give up and go away. Your choice.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:40:02 PM
From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:
"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
Did you even
read that abstract? The conclusion here is not, "You must dispose of realism," (as if realism = materialism) but, "You get to keep one of realism or locality, but not both." It specifically says that "LOCAL REALISTIC THEORIES" â€" theories that are
both realistic
and local â€" are untennible. Theories that are realistic but nonlocal are still live; theories that are local but nonrealistic are still live. And they
both admit materalistic theories, because, ya know, realism and materalism are not synonyms.
And, of course, none of these nonlocalities can be used to pass information, so special relativity is preserved, which is what is
actually feared.
I'm starting to think that you actually have a severe reading problem at this point. Comprehention is vital to communication. I read that abstract, and I find nothing that contradicts materalism. There is nothing here that contradicts realism. The only thing that is contradicted is realism and locality
together.If you think otherwise, then you really are too stupid to be arguing here. You need to go back to school and take remedial reading courses.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 01:15:37 PM
Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.
The same would happen if you stayed with the clock and sent a space probe racing to Jupiter and back. It has nothing to do with you. It's all special relativity.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 01:15:37 PM
This is explained by Probability Theory, the unobserved clock exists only as probability distribution when unobserved. Because of the extremely high probability that the clock should continue to have worked properly and recorded time accurately, the probability wave will collapse into this result when it is observed again. This is not proof that the unobserved clock existed as a discrete material object independent of observation, it is only proof that probability prefers consistency.
To say that the clock mechanism stands an extremely high probability of being in the correct configuration to have appeared to have kept time as if it were working as if it were observed is to say that the clock exists independently of observation.
You're not directly observing the cogs and wheels inside the clock either, but at any position of the hands on the face, you could open up the back of the clock and find the cogs in the exact position you'd expect to find them in. A probability of 1:1.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 01:15:37 PM
Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.
Relativity has nothing to do with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quote:
A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. However, modern physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons."[2]
The philosopher David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness. He has discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[3] Indeed, Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[4][5]
Quote:
The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.[22][23]
Read the article. Point being that your argument is by no means conclusive.
There might be someone who comes on here and floors us with a devastating argument. You are not that person. I asked earlier if English was your second language. Hakurei Reimu thinks you might have a severe reading problem.
In any case, people of note in the field of Quantum research do not agree with your viewpoint.
If succeeds in having a debate, the number one rule should be no Slick Maneuver can be used, and the second one is no comments from Deepak Chopra as his own. Soluitary
Quote from: Solitary on April 24, 2014, 01:59:45 PM
If succeeds in having a debate, the number one rule should be no Slick Maneuver can be used, and the second one is no comments from Deepak Chopra as his own. Soluitary
Oh, thats just mean.
Quote from: Berati on April 24, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion, then using your conclusion to prove your assumption.
If you were speaking into a mirror this sentence would make sense.
QuoteANd where was that information kept? In a ghosts head?
In Consciousness, the only thing we can know with certainty exists.
QuoteThere is nothing sly or subtle about "I feel therefore its real" This is the most logical place to go right after "I think therefore I am"
Proof of this is that you always do and always will continue to behave exactly as if it were true. Your actions speak louder than your words.
"I feel therefore it's real." is no justification for Materialism. I agree that what we experience is "real", all experience is "real", and I am an Idealist. To say that "Either materialism is true or nothing is real" is a false dichotomy, and the apparent source of your confusion. If Idealism is true, our experiences of reality continue to be just as
real as they ever were.
QuoteAnd where do you think the information is coming from? A ghosts head?
Consciousness.
QuoteNo, not bold assertions, logical conclusions based on our day to day, minute to minute, moment to moment experience.
You mean
Naive Realism which is not consistent with current scientific experimentation. Your assertions are based on "intuition" and "gut feelings" rather than evidence.
QuoteAnd has the ability to store and transmit information.
And has no ability to store and transmit information.
Consciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.
QuoteAgain, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.
And I will continue to ask the same question over and over until you understand why you are unable to give an answer or until you give up and go away. Your choice.
"I exist" is a piece of information that has been received before any external perception has been considered. If all sensory organs stopped working and stopped having the ability to perceive "material objects" information would not stop existing. Even if all I was experiencing was being a point of consciousness floating in an infinite black void, the information of my existence still remains.
The existence of material itself is only apparent to me because I first receive
information through sensory perceptions.
Consciousness and information come before I even have the chance to assume that material objects exist externally.What you do is first, ignore the
primacy of your own consciousness, then, ignore that perceptions are always and only the result of
information, then,
assume that what you are perceiving are external material objects that exist independent of your observation, then, based on unjustified assumptions conclude that external material objects are the fundamental and only substance that exist, then, declare that those assumed external material objects
produce consciousness, then declare that all information must
necessarily depend on those assumed external material objects to exist.
I stop with your first assumption because it is an unjustified and unnecessary one. I know that consciousness exists, and I know that information fundamentally produces the perceptions I experience. What you claim are observation independent material objects arise in my awareness only because of
information that I first interpret.
Therefore, when you are asking the question, "show me information that exists or is transmitted by immaterial" as an Idealist, my answer is
all of existence is an example of this. As a Materialist, you will disagree with this answer because you believe that
all of existence is material or fundamentally the result of material interactions. You believe that information and consciousness are fundamentally matter. Yours is an a posteriori philosophy based on a scientifically and philosophically untenable assumption. Mine is an a priori philosophy based on direct knowledge and direct experience that is consistent with scientific experimentation and philosophically sound.
He was so excited when he was promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade, he could hardly shave without cutting himself. Solitary
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
Consciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.
What scientific paper did you get this gem from? Bullshit weekly? For someone who claims to want evidence and understands science, you're very fond of making earth shattering statements about how the universe works without providing anything to back it up.
Quote from: stromboli on April 24, 2014, 01:47:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quote:
A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. However, modern physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons."[2]
The philosopher David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness. He has discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[3] Indeed, Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[4][5]
Quote:
The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.[22][23]
Read the article. Point being that your argument is by no means conclusive.
There might be someone who comes on here and floors us with a devastating argument. You are not that person. I asked earlier if English was your second language. Hakurei Reimu thinks you might have a severe reading problem.
In any case, people of note in the field of Quantum research do not agree with your viewpoint.
Congratulations on the most blatant straw-man argument of this very long thread. I am not a proponent of the Quantum Mind Theory and never even indicated that I was.... but good job arguing against that straw-man, way to go! I think you won!
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
...
That you snort when you laugh is not an argument,
...
The snort is by far a better argument, than what you've said so far.
31 pages was it? To get that fucking troll banned?
Say Your goodbyes everyone cause Casper is going awaaayyy (hopefully)
Last reply on 30!
I'm tempted to lock this ...
but with 450 posts... idk
Quote from: wolf39us on April 24, 2014, 02:38:25 PM
Last reply on 30!
I'm tempted to lock this ...
but with 450 posts... idk
.
Okay. So that will do it.
Which god?
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
If you were speaking into a mirror this sentence would make sense.
No, it is you who are making the illogical leaps to immaterialism.
Casparov: I think therefore I am
Casparov: I feel all this "stuff" but I will ASSUME that it is all an illusion (Even though I will live the rest of my days acting as though all this "stuff" is materially real.)
Everyone else: Show us how you can transfer or store information without material
Casparov: If my ASSUMPTION is correct, then you are merely interpreting information from my unknown and unprovable source that is immaterial.
QuoteIn Consciousness, the only thing we can know with certainty exists.
And consciousness is always tied to the material brain. No examples exist of it being otherwise. Drugs (material) can be used to effect the neurons and chemicals (materials) of a brain and therefore affect consciousness. Destruction of the brain always leads to destruction of the consciousness.
"Casparovs answer: If my ASSUMPTION is correct, then you are merely interpreting information from my unknown and unprovable source that is immaterial.
Quote"I feel therefore it's real." is no justification for Materialism. I agree that what we experience is "real", all experience is "real", and I am an Idealist. To say that "Either materialism is true or nothing is real" is a false dichotomy, and the apparent source of your confusion. If Idealism is true, our experiences of reality continue to be just as real as they ever were.
Change "real"to "Materially Real" and the logic still holds.
QuoteConsciousness.
And consciousness is always tied to the material brain. No examples exist of it being otherwise.
Did you believe you could substitute consciousness for God and no one would notice?
QuoteYou mean Naive Realism which is not consistent with current scientific experimentation. Your assertions are based on "intuition" and "gut feelings" rather than evidence.
No, I mean logical conclusions based on moment to moment experiences.
As to current scientific experiments... do you mean current scientific experiments carried out with real material instruments by real material people or do you mean fake scientific experiments carried out in the illusory world that you deny, yet accept if you mistakenly interpret the results as supporting your assumption?
QuoteConsciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.
Consciousness is always tied to the material brain. No examples exist of it being otherwise.
Quote"I exist" is a piece of information that has been received before any external perception has been considered.
"I exist" cannot even be thought without a material brain.
Show me an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material.
QuoteIf all sensory organs stopped working and stopped having the ability to perceive "material objects" information would not stop existing
.
Neither would the material objects that that are generating the information. No material = No information
QuoteEven if all I was experiencing was being a point of consciousness floating in an infinite black void, the information of my existence still remains.
Consciousness is always tied to the material brain. No examples exist of it being otherwise.
QuoteThe existence of material itself is only apparent to me because I first receive information through sensory perceptions. Consciousness and information come before I even have the chance to assume that material objects exist externally.
The brain comes first, then consciousness. Consciousness is always tied to the material brain. No examples exist of it being otherwise.
QuoteWhat you do is first, ignore the primacy of your own consciousness
,
Nope.
Quotethen, ignore that perceptions are always and only the result of information,
Information that is inseparable from material.
Quotethen, assume that what you are perceiving are external material objects that exist independent of your observation, then, based on unjustified assumptions conclude that external material objects are the fundamental and only substance that exist, then, declare that those assumed external material objects produce consciousness, then declare that all information must necessarily depend on those assumed external material objects to exist.
I make no assumptions. I am consistent in my actions.
QuoteI stop with your first assumption because it is an unjustified and unnecessary one. I know that consciousness exists, and I know that information fundamentally produces the perceptions I experience. What you claim are observation independent material objects arise in my awareness only because of information that I first interpret.
You start with a first assumption that is illogical and unecessary.
QuoteTherefore, when you are asking the question, "show me information that exists or is transmitted by immaterial" as an Idealist, my answer is all of existence is an example of this.
What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion, then using your conclusion to prove your assumption.
QuoteAs a Materialist, you will disagree with this answer because you believe that all of existence is material or fundamentally the result of material interactions. You believe that information and consciousness are fundamentally matter. Yours is an a posteriori philosophy based on a scientifically and philosophically untenable assumption. Mine is an a priori philosophy based on direct knowledge and direct experience that is consistent with scientific experimentation and philosophically sound.
What you are doing is assuming that everything you have experienced your entire life is an illusion then using that assumption as evidence for your conclusion. Every scientific experiment ever performed has been done here, in the world you claim is an illusion and all are dependant on material reality.
This thread is an illusion.
This thread is an illusion.
This thread is an illusion.
When you are denying everything that's existing in reality as evidence, no one can give you evidence, because by your definition evidence does not exist. This is a fun troll strategy, but it cannot be taken serioysly. You make up BS, don't understand quantum-mechanics ... You don't listen, and you certainly don't think. We have also busted you on materialism - which you don't understand. We have no idea what you even mean by the term anymore.
Anyhow, Caspar, as you have demonstrated to be incapable of thinking, the whole "I think therefor I am" bit is rather out of the window isn't it?
Seriously guys, if this smug, dishonest prick isn't a troll then he should be repeating kindergarten. Bring out the banhammer.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
In Consciousness, the only thing we can know with certainty exists.
And we're right back where we started.
The fact that consciousness is "the only thing we can know with certainty exists" does not entail that it is the primal stuff of the universe. The observation that we ourselves exist as conscious beings is not actually very remarkable if examined closely, because we can hardly make the observation otherwise â€" you cannot become aware of the fact that you lack awareness (unless you are mad), so the opposite is merely obvious.
le snipQuote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
You mean Naive Realism which is not consistent with current scientific experimentation. Your assertions are based on "intuition" and "gut feelings" rather than evidence.
You have no idea what "current scientific experimentation" concludes. I have yet to see a rebuttal to my debunking of your crap
on this very topic. Simply ignoring my responses will not make them go away.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
Consciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.
Which seems puzzling as every method we know that transmits information does so via
material means (no, quantum nonlocality does not transmit information). You have yet to come up with an example of information transmission that is UNAMBIGUOUSLY immaterial; you simply insist that all information transfer is immaterial and the material actions and means that accompany them are mere artifacts of our lack of perception. Sorry, but that will not wash in a million years.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
"I exist" is a piece of information that has been received before any external perception has been considered. If all sensory organs stopped working and stopped having the ability to perceive "material objects" information would not stop existing. Even if all I was experiencing was being a point of consciousness floating in an infinite black void, the information of my existence still remains.
Again, because you can hardly observe otherwise. And if you cannot observe otherwise, the information content of that fact is actually ZERO.
le snipQuote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
The existence of material itself is only apparent to me because I first receive information through sensory perceptions. Consciousness and information come before I even have the chance to assume that material objects exist externally.
Which
does not entail that consciousness and information are more fundamental than material objects that exist externally. The bleeding obvious.
There's also a bunch of developmental psychologists who would argue with you about the order of the development in children of consciousness, information, and perception.
Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:08:27 PM
What you do is first, ignore the primacy of your own consciousness, then, ignore that perceptions are always and only the result of information, then, assume that what you are perceiving are external material objects that exist independent of your observation, then, based on unjustified assumptions conclude that external material objects are the fundamental and only substance that exist, then, declare that those assumed external material objects produce consciousness, then declare that all information must necessarily depend on those assumed external material objects to exist.
The assumption of materialism actually
bears out. The world
does make much more sense if it is wholey material rather than ideal or even dual. For instance, if consciousness is more fundamental than the material, why can't we simply unwish danger from our world? Why do we even fear material dangers in the first place? (Not just for us, but for all animals. Even plants have adaptations that tend to preserve the integrity of their material.) Why do we seek out new, previously unknown dangers to protect ourselves from, and are anxious to expose?
This makes no sense if the world is idealistic. Unknown dangers literally would not exist, and so would not need to be sought out (we have enough troubles already). Simply denying the existence of a threat would be an effective method of dealing with it, for it is the product of consciousness; that we don't even consider this method of dealing with dangers is rather odd if they are created by our consciousness â€" indeed, the more people are not aware of a danger, the more alarmed and vocal the people who are aware of a danger become. If the material did not exist, then material dangers would not exist either â€" why then, be afraid of them and simply return to the nonmaterial world of bare consciousness?
On the other hand, if the world is materialistic, then it all just makes fucking sense: we fear material dangers because they can end our very existence, and there's no backup nonmaterial conscious realm to fall back on. Those dangers can't be unwished because consciousness itself obeys materialistic laws and cannot change them, being less fundamental. We seek out dangers we do not yet know exist, because not knowing they don't exist will not stop them from killing us.
Even if materialism is an assumption, it's an assumption that bears out. Regardless of your wishes otherwise, consciousness bears the imprimatur as a product of evolution. It bears the marks of a process that is evolved to be a survival tool for wholly material creatures, evolved over eons to deal with the material world â€"
because that's it's job. Even then, consciousness is not
necessary for survival, strictly speaking. The overwhelming majority of creatures on this planet do fine without even rudimentary consciousness.
le snip finaleAnyway, I think you've had a good run. And I agree with LDV that you have worn out your welcome.
:blahblah:
:music2:
:kidra:
:wall:
:oak:
:eyes:
:rotflmao:
:dance:
:pray:
:hang:
Summary of Casparovs 2 step method of self deception:
1) I think therefore my consciousness is all that exists. (Huge assumption and a distortion of Descartes philosophical proposition)
2) I reject any and all other evidence as illusion. (Exceptions made if he misinterprets experiments into supporting assumption 1)
Result: No rational discussion can be had.
Thread is dead
Quote from: Jason78 on April 24, 2014, 01:01:16 PM
Take two accurate clocks. Synchronise them.
Leave one clock in one location. Carry one with you. After five hours return to the clock you left.
The unobserved clock will have kept time, even though it and its component parts were unobserved.
(This experiment works even if you don't carry another clock with you, it's just a lot harder to return after five hours.)
It also works if you don't know the time the clock you're carrying has until you unveil both of them, or that what you're carrying is a clock at all. The initiator of the experiment could write down the nature of the experiment, be mercifully terminated, and the person carrying out the experiment will get the same results, even though no one living knows what the expected result was until they read the experimenter's notes.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 24, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
Relativity has nothing to do with this.
AND if you know the speed of the clock being zipped around, you can calculate precisely what time the other clock will show, sans observation anyway.
Maybe it's time for an anecdote. About 13 years ago, I was heavily sedated for open heart surgery. I was completely unconscious for about nine hours. For that time period I had no perception of existing at all. For me, no time passed between counting backwards and suddenly waking up with tubes in my throat and chest. With the parts of my brain that produce my state of consciousness suppreseed, my consciousness...I...couldn't exist. When the function of those parts of my brain returned, so did 'I'. Prior to that experience, I had trouble conceiving of what it would be like to cease to exist. Subsequent to it, I have quite lost any fear of being dead--it's literally nothing to be afraid of, and have wondered if I did truly die in a sense and it's Mister Agenda 2.0 that types all of these fascinating and riveting posts.
Quote from: Mister Agenda on April 25, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
Maybe it's time for an anecdote. About 13 years ago, I was heavily sedated for open heart surgery. I was completely unconscious for about nine hours. For that time period I had no perception of existing at all. For me, no time passed between counting backwards and suddenly waking up with tubes in my throat and chest. With the parts of my brain that produce my state of consciousness suppreseed, my consciousness...I...couldn't exist. When the function of those parts of my brain returned, so did 'I'. Prior to that experience, I had trouble conceiving of what it would be like to cease to exist. Subsequent to it, I have quite lost any fear of being dead--it's literally nothing to be afraid of, and have wondered if I did truly die in a sense and it's Mister Agenda 2.0 that types all of these fascinating and riveting posts.
What a beautiful tale. You should write a book :)
As for the thread it was DOA since the first page. I'm amazed it lasted this long :)
I was in a coma for 4 days after a motorcyle accident in the Navy. Nothing. Got nothing, no afterlife shit, nothing. Really disappointed.
I have had an operation for a severed right hand from an explosion where all the ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels were cut in half. I went into shock when I was worked on with no anesthesia because I had to be awake while the nerves were attached back together to which ends were correct, every time the nerves were connected it was like a bolt of lightening going from my forearm to my toes. I almost bled out. I was rushed to the hospital and was afraid of being put under and told the anesthesiologist I was. He said I was one of the few that admits it.
I also had a pituitary adenoma (non cancerous tumor.) pressing on my optic nerve causing me to go blind in my left eye, it was also pressing on a blood vessel producing an aneurism. The tumor was removed through my nose by suction. Then I had prostate cancer and a double hernia operation on the same day. I was suppose to come home the same day because they were done using the Davinci method, however, things went wrong after six hours and I was clinically dead two or three times. Almost my entire body shut down and my small intestine quit working. The pain was unbearable and I was caught between the will to live and the wish to die.
After two weeks, and three days of living hell I was released to come home and give myself shots of lovenox in the belly for blood clots. After I got better I was walking in the back yard and everything became psychedelic and I sat down on a swing while breathing as deep as I can, because I knew my brain wasn't getting enough oxygen for some reason. While I was looking at a fountain my vision started to fade and go away, then my hearing did the same, I was only aware of being conscious.
I finally came back to normal and made it to my porch and yelled for my wife and son. In the emergency room the doctor asked me what happened. I told him and he said I was within 20-30 seconds of dying. I told him I knew that. I still had to have a catheter in place. I finally got it removed and couldn't urinate. After 5 more operations It was fixed, and now I have incontinence. In every single operation after the first I wasn't afraid in the least to be put under. I even kept my eyes open to see what would happen---light switch on. light switch off---wake up in recovery. We are a physical body with a brain that produces consciousness, which is real, but that doesn't mean it can exist without a brain alive and functioning correctly. This has been shown to be true by neurologist. In the emergency surgery room, I worked in, there was a note on top of a partial wall that not one single person who's consciousness left their body during surgery and floated on the ceiling could read and even see it.
I had this happen to me twice in my life, and have no doubt it is an illusion, the first time was during a skydiving accident. I have to admit it, seems a real as anything can be, but just shows how remarkable are brains are at creating things that don't exist like God. Solitary.
Quote from: Mister Agenda on April 25, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
Maybe it's time for an anecdote. About 13 years ago, I was heavily sedated for open heart surgery. I was completely unconscious for about nine hours. For that time period I had no perception of existing at all. For me, no time passed between counting backwards and suddenly waking up with tubes in my throat and chest. With the parts of my brain that produce my state of consciousness suppreseed, my consciousness...I...couldn't exist. When the function of those parts of my brain returned, so did 'I'. Prior to that experience, I had trouble conceiving of what it would be like to cease to exist. Subsequent to it, I have quite lost any fear of being dead--it's literally nothing to be afraid of, and have wondered if I did truly die in a sense and it's Mister Agenda 2.0 that types all of these fascinating and riveting posts.
You die in that sense every single night during dreamless sleep.
QuoteGasparov said: You die in that sense every single night during dreamless sleep.
^^^^^^^^^^
Need no more evidence of trolling.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 25, 2014, 12:10:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Need no more evidence of trolling.
. I bet he is having fun too. He is funny.
I want to know how one that is just conscious can think without a material brain or body. I think, therefore I am. Who's doing the thinking? This is circular reasoning. Strange that one of the greatest thinkers could fall into that trap, but he was religious. Shouldn't it be I am physically (real), therefore I have a brain and think, and think I am (an illusion) because I am conscious (real). Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on April 25, 2014, 01:23:51 PM
I want to know how one that is just conscious can think without a material brain or body. I think, therefore I am. Who's doing the thinking? This is circular reasoning. Strange that one of the greatest thinkers could fall into that trap, but he was religious. Shouldn't it be I am physically (real), therefore I have a brain and think, and think I am (an illusion) because I am conscious (real). Solitary
Descartes never intended for "I think therefore I am" to mean "I think therefore thought is all that there is"
It was a starting point, not an end point as ghost for brains would have you believe.
Quote from: Casparov on April 25, 2014, 11:59:35 AM
You die in that sense every single night during dreamless sleep.
That must be why it's impossible to rouse someone who is asleep and not dreaming, they're completely unconscio...oh, wait, they're not.
The body (material) is still aware even if an unconscious emerging (illusionary) being isn't. Solitary
I was a teenage atheist, who after becoming a Christian, at age 17, postulated to my atheist father that the vast amount of space in an atom was evidence that the universe was actually an infinitely regressing pattern in the mind of God. That the laws of nature are His perfect thought processes in orderly fashion and that what he dreams becomes real because of His faith. He didn't buy it, of course. I'm 48 now, and I've since outgrown the idea.
Conscious beings will never fully explain consciousness to their own satisfaction. It is a unique property of the complex particle we call a human.
I think, Casparov, that your most recent reply to Mr. Agenda, was inadequate. He makes an excellent point about our ability to experience the cessation of consciousness, through sedation. It goes a long way toward proving that consciousness is dependent on the material brain.