Does "materialism false" imply "intentional deception"?

[ChuckieR]

I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”

Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?

It is not obvious (to me and many others) that there is some non-material aspect to things, so something must be fooling me into thinking that there is a material world; or, at the very least, not making it obvious that there is something more than the material world. Why isn’t the “real” reality obvious to everyone (or, in the case of Solipsism, why isn’t it obvious to you :))? Why this façade? Who’s running the projector, so to speak, and why are they doing it?

Many of the “standard” religions seem to admit outright that there are things in the world that are there to “fool” you (Satan put them there) or that are put there as a “test of your faith” (God put them there). The fossil record vs. the creation story comes to mind, for instance. So, many religions freely admit that "intentional deception" is a part of their belief system.

What about the non-biblical (old/new testament, Koran) religions, or other belief systems that do not always call themselves religions? Don’t they all have to have to accept this intentional deception?

[Dancing David]

In buddhism the intentional deception is the belief in the self.

Great question!

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well they can be objectivists but not materialists. Or they can be pluralists, believe in more then one substance.

Like for example I can believe there is a material world AND spiritual world.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
In buddhism the intentional deception is the belief in the self.

Great question! ...and that the self is separate from the physical body? I guess the self is what gives you your perception of the world? So the belief is that there is some part of the self that you do not easily have access to that is creating your perceptions? So your self is essentially deceiving you?

Sorry for the Buddhism 101 questions!

[Dancing David]

Hi Chuckie,
the argument is that there is a body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions, there are established patterens. But no where in these is there any permenent thing which can be called self. So in other words there is the physical body, but it is impermanent and changing, there are thoughts but they are imoarmanent and changing... etc.. Mostly the buddha was trying to counter the Vedic idea of the atman, the 'see-er' behind the eye, the 'hear-er' behind the ear.

And then the buddha's idea is that attachment to the idea of self causes suffering.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well they can be objectivists but not materialists. Or they can be pluralists, believe in more then one substance.

Like for example I can believe there is a material world AND spiritual world. ...but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

For instance, if the spiritual world can interact with the physical world in any "miraculous" way (ESP, preserving the spirit/self after death, etc.) and break the rules, then we have to accept that "anything goes", anything could happen, and that the "rules" of physics are just a meaningless farce that can be ignored at any time by the "spiritual" world. Then we must believe that we are being intentionally deceived into believing that there are any rules at all.

Does this make sense?

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hi Chuckie,
the argument is that there is a body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions, there are established patterens. But no where in these is there any permenent thing which can be called self. So in other words there is the physical body, but it is impermanent and changing, there are thoughts but they are imoarmanent and changing... etc.. Mostly the buddha was trying to counter the Vedic idea of the atman, the 'see-er' behind the eye, the 'hear-er' behind the ear.

And then the buddha's idea is that attachment to the idea of self causes suffering.

Sorry to hijack the thread! Not a hijack at all, this is just the sort of thing I'd like to understand. And I admit that Buddhism is still a bit beyond my grasp. It doesn't seem to have that simple notion of a single "big guy in the sky" that the other big religions have.

So it's a bit more challenging to figure out how to fit in my notion that there is some intelligent being that is intentionally deceiving you into believing that there is some sort of orderly material world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR

For instance, if the spiritual world can interact with the physical world in any "miraculous" way (ESP, preserving the spirit/self after death, etc.) and break the rules,

Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
[B]I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”



Reality appears to be material? What do you mean? What is meant by "material"?



Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?



If we weren't born into the modern western culture, would materialism still obviously be true? I think we become materialists largely through being immersed into the common prevailing wisdom of our culture, and through "education". Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is supposely due to some "material reality". But what is this material reality? Why can't our qualia constitute the external world?



It is not obvious (to me and many others) that there is some non-material aspect to things,



With what reason are you saying that phenomenal consciousness/qualia are material? Can you give any justification for supposing they are? Can you explain what the word "material" means?

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely? I suppose ESP is too general a term. I guess I'd have to observe and study a real case of ESP before I could venture an explanation of exactly what rules are being broken.

Life after death would seem to imply that there is something more to "you" than the physical body. That "something" must interact with the physical body in some way, else there is no point in positing it. That interaction/influence must occur outside the rules of the material world, otherwise it would be "part of" the material world, and hence would die with the physical body.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If we weren't born into the modern western culture, would materialism still obviously be true?Materialism is either true or it isn't (and of course I can't prove anything either way). It doesn't matter what we believe or how much we know or who wins which arguments. It's either true or false, independant of our judgements.

I think we become materialists largely through being immersed into the common prevailing wisdom of our culture, and through "education". Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is supposely due to some "material reality". But what is this material reality? Why can't our qualia constitute the external world?Yes, our education absolutely plays a role in our beliefs. And if your belief is that perception creates reality, then I don't think I can prove you wrong.

But that is the point of my question. If you believe that your perceptions are creating reality, then don't you have to believe that there is some deeper layer of "reality" that is hidden from you (or at least hidden from those who don't understand reality in the way you do)? And that this "relam of interaction" where we are having this discussion is a bit of a farce?

With what reason are you saying that phenomenal consciousness/qualia are material? Can you give any justification for supposing they are? Can you explain what the word "material" means? Well, I surely can't "prove" that consciousness is material, I can only say that I haven't yet seen any reason to believe otherwise. In other words, I can't come up with any strong reason for supposing that it isn't.

The "material" world is what seems to be around us and what appears to follow these inviolate rules. We can do all of these experiments and they always seem to confirm the rules.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?

Originally posted by ChuckieR
I suppose ESP is too general a term. I guess I'd have to observe and study a real case of ESP before I could venture an explanation of exactly what rules are being broken.I know it's bad form to reply to yourself, but I realized that I didn't give a very good answer here.

I think that it is not really possible to just violate "one rule". The rules of nature are all intertwined. If you violate nature, you violate nature. If you can do it at all, even just a little bit, then the whole set of rules comes crashing down.

For instance, let's say you can "violate gravity", you can float. But then you could use that to generate energy. In fact, you could use it to propel a "perpetual motion" machine and generate infinite energy from nowhere. Then, you see, the whole thing stops making sense and we might as well just give up.

That's why if your belief system allows any violation at all, then you must accept that the whole thing is a deception, a fake set of rules that is put up just for your/our entertainment.

If you reject the belief that you are being intentionally deceived, and that things "are as they appear", then materialism follows, no?

[Yahzi]

ChuckieR
I think you are right, which is why all attempts at idealism wind up postulating some reason for the deception.

Our current crop of idealists are basically limiting themselves to the argument that some phenomona cannot yet be explained by materialism, so there is at least the possiblity of idealism. If we were to cave into their argument, and accept idealism as true, then maybe we would start to see the arguments for why, if idealism is true, the world seems so materalistic...

I'm sure they would start talking about things like "closed mindedness" and "fear" and "sin."

[DialecticMaterialist]

..but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

No, that's a non sequitur. You could simply say you don't know how they interact, or that they don't interact(Parallelism, Occasionalism).

For example, you could believe in Karma or the Tao for example without saying matter is an illusion. The interaction would just be a mysery.

Perhaps you could call non-materialists, who are educated disingenuine, but intentionally deceptive is too strong an accusation.

[Underemployed]

The Buddhist ideal of Nirvana is total one-ness with everything. The deception we are all under is that we are individual beings, which causes strife - the reality is that we are all one and that life and death are illusions.

So Buddhism side-steps the problem of having something else doing the deceiving - you're the one deceiving yourself.

And if that doens't clear it up, it's obviously all your fault.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Buddhists seem very atomistic/postivist.

Notice their reasoning can be taken further, body, there are thoughts, there emotions, there are perceptions

There is no body, only cells. No thoughts, only neurons/sensations. No emotions, only "anger"/"like"/"pain" impulse. And no "perceptions" only "red" "flat" "grey" "square" sight. I mean if they really want to break it down, they should go all the way.

[Loki]

ChuckieR,

Well said!

The universe certainly appears to be material (for the sake of Ian, lets just say "material = an existence independant of, and not requiring, 'consciousness'").

If this is *not* true, then why do we (consciousnesses) appear to :
(a) have no contact with or information about the "true" reality (whatever it is) that we exist in;
(b) construct such an elaborate illusion?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
I’d like to hear peoples’ viewpoints on this question that’s been nagging me lately. I ask this question because I really don’t know what the various non-materialist viewpoints entail regarding “this thing that appears to be a material universe.”

Here’s the main question for this thread: If you believe that materialism is false, don’t you then have to accept that there is something that is intentionally deceiving you into perceiving this seemingly material world?

You speak of "intentional deception." I would agree that there is an element of deception, on Satan's part, but I think that it is less a question of deception for him than it is of desperation: This apparently materialistic world is the only kind of world in which he can avoid judgment and hold on to a modicum of power for the time being.

The best insight into the nature of the war between God and Satan that I am aware of comes in the book of Job. God didn't hate Job, he wasn't out to get Job; he was holding Job up as a living example of everything that was good and right in a human being. Satan responded, in so many words, that if God would withdraw his blessings and his protection that Job would curse God to his face. God allowed Satan to attack Job, but Job withstood Satan's attack and continued to trust God.

What was Satan's reaction? Did he say, "Well, God, I guess you were right and I was wrong!" No; in gambling terms you might say his response was, "Double or nothing!" In so many words, he said, "Do this and he'll curse you for sure!"

I believe the key to understanding the spiritual war is this: This process has never ended! Satan has been, and continues to take the position that, "If only I can have things my way, I would win!" I think that we see a continuation of this process in the humiliation and crucifixion of Jesus. God allowed Satan to do to Jesus everything that God wouldn't allow him to do to Job, and Jesus didn't break.

I know I've gotten a little sidetracked, but I haven't forgotten your question. How does this all tie in? Ever since the resurrection, Jesus Christ has been the rightful ruler and judge of this world. If--when--he openly takes this position, Satan is finished. And Satan knows that. The only way for Satan to remain in power and avoid judgment is to obstruct Christ's return. "Obstruct" as in the legal sense, of course, not the physical; Satan doesn't have the power to block God by force majeur. But the question at stake here--and the reason God doesn't simply roll in and take over anyway--is one of right, not might.

And so Satan continues to withhold his assent; to say, in so many words, "If only I had things my way, I would win!" And God is going along, to a certain extent. Satan, of course, doesn't get everything his way; if he did, Jesus would never have been raised from the dead. But he does, I believe, get whatever he is willing to agree is "fair".

And so I believe that this material world, as we now see it, is the end result of that process; it is a world which both sides are willing to agree upon as fair. It is a world in which atheism and materialism are, for the time being, plausible; at the same time, it is a world in which people of faith can hold to the revealed word of the living God.

It is a world which is, for the present, in a state of stalemate. Or perhaps a better term is "cold war." While there are stories which imply activities "behind the scenes" in both the occult and angelic realms, there have been no open and public uses of what one might refer to as "nuclear weapons." Were Satan to do so, one may safely assume that God would respond immediately in kind; were God to violate the de facto policy of "no first use" then Satan would be able to claim a moral victory.

I believe that God's decision and actions are planned in order to do nothing which would allow Satan to claim a victory, moral or otherwise. I am convinced that he intends to see to it that Satan is defeated while playing by Satan's own rules. And so, for the present, God refrains from open intervention in the affairs of the world and the result is the "materialistic" world which we see. At the same time, I do not believe the stalemate will continue forever; I have seen indications that it is cracking already. But that is a subject for another time and place.

[Loki]

ehbowen,

There are between 1.5 and 2 billion 'christians' on the planet at the moment. We have a 2,000 year history of christianity. All up, that's...well... a lot of christians in total! Doesn't it ever worry you that you (and only you) seem to be the one christian to have fully discovered the "reality" in the nature of god, the devil, the universe, and the battle between good and evil? I realise that you believe that god has chosen you to be a "special participant" in his plan, but doesn't it seem just slightly more likely that you've misinterpreted some signal along the way, and are reading a little more into things than might be there?

[ChuckieR]

ChuckieR:
..but once you believe there is a spiritual world, don't you also have to believe in some sort of interaction between the spiritual world and the material world (else, what's the point of the spiritual world). And once there is some interaction between the two, then you must drop any notion of materialism, and accept that the material world is just a meaningless "show".

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[B]No, that's a non sequitur. You could simply say you don't know how they interact, or that they don't interact(Parallelism, Occasionalism).
I looked those two up here (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/index.html) (first Google hit - not very deep, I know), since I'm not familiar with them:

occasionalism - A view popularized by Nicolas Malbranche whereby: (1) the mental and the material comprise two different kinds of substance; (2) neither has any direct causal effect on the other and; (3) all seeming interactions between the two are due to the continual intervention by God who brings about a change in one on the occasion of a change in the other. See dualism, doctrine of preestablished harmony, parallelism.

parallelism - The view that mental and physical phenomena occur in but that these simultaneities never involve causal interactions.
I'd need to see more detail on Parallelism. As for Occasionalism, "God" is apparently providing the deception, working us poor physical beings like puppets and forcing us to interact in this seemingly physical universe.

For example, you could believe in Karma or the Tao for example without saying matter is an illusion. The interaction would just be a mysery.I suppose a belief system could simply not address the specifics directly, but I don't think that would get rid of the problem. I think I can summarize the problem like this: If there is something more to "us" than our physical bodies, then why is that not obvious to everyone, and why are our "real" selves hidden?

For instance, I believe Buddhism has the notion of Rebirth (though I'm not very familiar with the whole religion). Once you have the notion that we consist of something beyond the physical, there must be some mechanism or agent that coordinates the spiritual and the physical (even if the belief system does not give specific details, it must exist). Why doesn't this agent simply choose to let us interact in the "spiritual" realm? Why bother with this "physical" realm?

Again, I'm not trying to say that this disproves any of these spiritual belief systems. All I'm saying is that some sort of intentional deception goes hand in hand with any non-materialist belief system.

Perhaps you could call non-materialists, who are educated disingenuine, but intentionally deceptive is too strong an accusation. Oh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that people who have these beliefs are trying being decpetive.

Rather, that inherent in any non-materialist belief system, there is some "thing" that is intentionally deceiving us into perceiving this material world, and "hiding" any "spiritual" world from direct observation/perception.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Underemployed
The Buddhist ideal of Nirvana is total one-ness with everything. The deception we are all under is that we are individual beings, which causes strife - the reality is that we are all one and that life and death are illusions.

So Buddhism side-steps the problem of having something else doing the deceiving - you're the one deceiving yourself.
Each different viewpoint on Buddhism helps me get a little bit clearer picture. As I understand it, people spend their whole lives trying to understand it (and trying to get closer to Nirvana?).

I get your point about us deceiving ourselves. So there is some part of our "selves" that we are not aware of (that we can never be directly aware of? That only some are aware of?). I wonder why this part of our "self" keeps itself hidden? And why it chooses to present this physical world to us?

And if that doens't clear it up, it's obviously all your fault. :)

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Loki
ChuckieR,

Well said!

The universe certainly appears to be material (for the sake of Ian, lets just say "material = an existence independant of, and not requiring, 'consciousness'").

If this is *not* true, then why do we (consciousnesses) appear to :
(a) have no contact with or information about the "true" reality (whatever it is) that we exist in;
(b) construct such an elaborate illusion? That seems to be exactly what I'm trying to get at, stated very succinctly.

I think this must be inherent in any non-materialist belief system.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by ehbowen
...
And so I believe that this material world, as we now see it, is the end result of that process; it is a world which both sides are willing to agree upon as fair. It is a world in which atheism and materialism are, for the time being, plausible; at the same time, it is a world in which people of faith can hold to the revealed word of the living God.
...
Thanks for the summary. As I mentioned in my first post, I think it's clear in most forms of Christianity that God is responsible for making us perceive this material world. And that, being "all powerful", he could choose to do otherwise, but doesn't. If he can't choose to do otherwise, then he's not "all powerful"... but that's a very old argument.

[Dancing David]

Chuckie:
As far as the buddha and rebirth, Siddartha Gautama vehemently denied there was any sort of rebirth, the closest he came was to say that our actions may live beyond us in thier consequences, but in Mhahyana, anything that leads to the buddha is considered to be useful and so there is the idea of reincarnation in some forms of buddhism.

The thing about atomism is very true as well, the buddha described the five skanhas which translatesa as 'heaps', so you can pile as many things that are not self on them that you want.

Peace

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Chuckie:
As far as the buddha and rebirth, Siddartha Gautama vehemently denied there was any sort of rebirth, the closest he came was to say that our actions may live beyond us in thier consequences, but in Mhahyana, anything that leads to the buddha is considered to be useful and so there is the idea of reincarnation in some forms of buddhism.

The thing about atomism is very true as well, the buddha described the five skanhas which translatesa as 'heaps', so you can pile as many things that are not self on them that you want.
Peace Thanks for explaining that.

It seems that there are some forms of Buddhism that don't differ too much from materialism! In this sense, Buddhism seems to be simply suggestions as to how to live your life, and avoids any sort of theological doctrines.

Do these "pure" forms of Buddhism make any claims that differentiate them from materialism?

As an aside, do you know if buddhanet (http://www.buddhanet.net) is a good place to go for the curious to get an overview of Buddhism? It seems to me to be fairly levelheaded, but I don't know enough about Buddhism to detect whether it is coming from a particular angle or is slanted towards a particular version of Buddhism.

[Dancing David]

As I recall they are cool, there are two main schools of buddhism, the Teravada and the Mahayana. There is no right or wrong buddism, just personal opinions, I like to read Thich Haht Hanh.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Loki
ehbowen,

There are between 1.5 and 2 billion 'christians' on the planet at the moment. We have a 2,000 year history of christianity. All up, that's...well... a lot of christians in total!

"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it." (1 Cor. 9:24)

Doesn't it ever worry you that you (and only you) seem to be the one christian to have fully discovered the "reality" in the nature of god, the devil, the universe, and the battle between good and evil?

Well, in the first place I don't claim to have "fully" discovered the nature of God, etc. There is much more about God, the universe, and so on to learn. I only claim that I have come to an understanding of these subjects which is logically consistent, which does not conflict with any known facts, and which is compatible with our best understanding of the previously revealed nature and character of God.

In the second place you must understand that I have devoted my entire adult life to seeking to know and understand God. Had I devoted that same measure of energy and dedication to physics, I might very well at this point be the one person to have ever "fully" discovered the reality of quantum gravity. Were that to have happened, should my response have been to shrink back and say, "No, there's no possible way I could be first; best to give this all up as a waste of time?" Or should I be seeking to publish my results and search for experimental confirmation of them?

I realise that you believe that god has chosen you to be a "special participant" in his plan, but doesn't it seem just slightly more likely that you've misinterpreted some signal along the way, and are reading a little more into things than might be there?

Simple answer: No.

More complete answer: Is it possible that I have misinterpreted some signal and am reading more into things than might be there? Yes, absolutely, it is possible, and I try to keep that possibility well in mind. But at the same time, as I mentioned above, I have spent my entire adult life seeking to know God and to know the truth about spiritual things. So I am not surprised that, in recent years, I have been receiving results. I still seek, and will continue to seek, the grand prize: an open revelation of God in this world and in this age. This is something which I am convinced God is willing to do, and so this is what I seek. And, while continuing to seek, I continue to believe the words of Jesus: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you...."

I have seen enough answered prayer that I am not easily discouraged when the initial answer seems to be not to my liking. I am convinced that seeking to know God and to know the truth about God is in accordance with his will, and so his answer to my prayer will never be, "No," but will either be, "Yes," or, "Wait for it." And so I continue to persist and wait, and, while waiting, to come to an even better understanding of the previously revealed nature and character of God. I fully expect an answer to my prayer, and I am convinced that that answer will come at exactly the right time and place and in the right way.

If finding God was easy, everyone could do it. And where would be the reward in that? But in a world which is dominated by Satan, "the god of this world," breaking through to know the true God requires supreme effort and unswerving dedication. And the reward will be commensurate.

[Loki]

ehbowen,

I only claim that I have come to an understanding of these subjects which is logically consistent, which does not conflict with any known facts, and which is compatible with our best understanding of the previously revealed nature and character of God.
Credit where credit is due...you have a *very* logically consistent worldview! (Edited to add - based upon your chosen axioms, I mean!)

In the second place you must understand that I have devoted my entire adult life to seeking to know and understand God.
A pity really, because you seem to have an intellect capable of achieving a great deal. A pity it's been wasted...

I might very well at this point be the one person to have ever "fully" discovered the reality of quantum gravity. ... should my response have been to shrink back and say, "No, there's no possible way I could be first; best to give this all up as a waste of time?" Or should I be seeking to publish my results and search for experimental confirmation of them?
A nice analogy, but fatally flawed on 2 grounds. First, the difference is that the pool of "thinking christians of the past 2,000 years" is considerably bigger than the the pool of "physicists of the past 2,000 years" - making it orders of magnitude less likely that you could be that "one special person". Second, (and more importantly) physics builds upon the previous works, each step a refinement of the previous - your work essentially builds on a 2,000 year old source (the bible), and directly contradicts the predominant (ie, catholic) christian teachings that have developed in that time.

So I am not surprised that, in recent years, I have been receiving results. I still seek, and will continue to seek, the grand prize: an open revelation of God in this world and in this age. This is something which I am convinced God is willing to do, and so this is what I seek.
Okay, now you're scaring me! Seriously, I'm glad you are open to reviewing your position, and that you consider "error" to be a possibility. Keep exploring that idea!!!

And the reward will be commensurate.
What reward do you hope for? What would you hope to recieve that would be denied to someone who simply lived a 'moral' live, and was a force for good instead of evil?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Loki
Credit where credit is due...you have a *very* logically consistent worldview! (Edited to add - based upon your chosen axioms, I mean!)

Disclaimer noted. Thank you anyway.

A pity really, because you seem to have an intellect capable of achieving a great deal. A pity it's been wasted...

The only way that it may have been "wasted" is if, in every point in which your world view differs from mine, you are correct. If there is even one particular in which I hold a more correct view of this world and this universe than you do, then my efforts have not been totally wasted. And if, as I believe, my world view proves to have been the correct one, then there has been no waste at all; indeed, I cannot think of a higher and better pursuit upon which to have spent my life.

A nice analogy, but fatally flawed on 2 grounds. First, the difference is that the pool of "thinking christians of the past 2,000 years" is considerably bigger than the the pool of "physicists of the past 2,000 years" - making it orders of magnitude less likely that you could be that "one special person".

Someone still has to win the prize.

Second, (and more importantly) physics builds upon the previous works, each step a refinement of the previous - your work essentially builds on a 2,000 year old source (the bible), and directly contradicts the predominant (ie, catholic) christian teachings that have developed in that time.

While I do not claim to be bound by (or to have studied) the teachings of the Roman church, I have not come to my views in total isolation. Aside from my upbringing in a Baptist church, I have been greatly influenced by writers such as Hal Lindsey and C.S. Lewis. Not that I hold dogmatically to their works, either--Mr. Lindsey in particular would likely have a cow were he to hear me state that I currently do not believe that there will be a "rapture" of the church.

I do feel that God has been leading me to some of my current ideas; more often, though, I have come to them by thinking through some knotty problems and by being willing to consider the limiting case. An example for your edification and amusement: Consider the problem of open conflict--warfare, even--between two entities (whether individuals or organizations) which are (a) immortal and (b) possess the ability to alter history and travel through time. What is the most probable final outcome of such a case?

Okay, now you're scaring me! Seriously, I'm glad you are open to reviewing your position, and that you consider "error" to be a possibility. Keep exploring that idea!!!

Scaring you? Isn't that what atheists in general demand; that God present himself openly and publicly with cameras, spectrometers, and a proctologist standing by? One might be tempted to say, "Be careful what you ask for. You may get it." As regards the other, though, yes, I will try to keep the possibility of error in mind. I do ask that you do the same, and that you keep in mind the possibility that the predjudices inherent in your worldview may slant how you view and respond to events. I think I may follow this up with another thread. How does, "The 'Need To Believe'--It Cuts Both Ways" sound to you?


What reward do you hope for? What would you hope to recieve that would be denied to someone who simply lived a 'moral' live, and was a force for good instead of evil?

Now if I were to give you a straight answer to that, you would think that I truly had lost it. And you might be right. So I'll just say, "Wait and see...."

[c4ts]

The denial of materialism is more of a different way of looking at things than a deception, unless it's coming from Ian or UCE.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by c4ts
The denial of materialism is more of a different way of looking at things than a deception, unless it's coming from Ian or UCE. C4ts,

I can't tell if you are being :) or not... so I'll assume not (please feel free to chastise me if I have guessed wrongly).

Anyway, I agree that in most cases, people who believe in something "beyond" materialism are not being deceptive (exceptions noted? though I think they are sincere in their beliefs, if sometimes frustratingly argumentative).

I was trying to argue that inherent in any non-materialist belief system, there must be some "agent" (for lack of a better word) that is intentionally deceiving us into perceiving this material world, and hiding the "real" non-material world from us.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
Contravene the physical laws of nature? How so? How would esp or "life after death" do that? Which physical laws are being broken precisely?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose ESP is too general a term. I guess I'd have to observe and study a real case of ESP before I could venture an explanation of exactly what rules are being broken.

Life after death would seem to imply that there is something more to "you" than the physical body. That "something" must interact with the physical body in some way, else there is no point in positing it. That interaction/influence must occur outside the rules of the material world, otherwise it would be "part of" the material world, and hence would die with the physical body.



I think you mean contravenes naturalism rather than physical laws.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
But that is the point of my question. If you believe that your perceptions are creating reality,



My perceptions don't create reality, they are reality.




then don't you have to believe that there is some deeper layer of "reality" that is hidden from you (or at least hidden from those who don't understand reality in the way you do)?



No, on the contrary, that's the position the materialist is forced into since qualia does not constitute the external world.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With what reason are you saying that phenomenal consciousness/qualia are material? Can you give any justification for supposing they are? Can you explain what the word "material" means?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I surely can't "prove" that consciousness is material, I can only say that I haven't yet seen any reason to believe otherwise. In other words, I can't come up with any strong reason for supposing that it isn't.



But what meaning does it have to say my actual taste of coffee is material? The neural correlates of taste are yes. But you need to state that the taste is logically entailed by the neural correlates. But nobody can demonstrate this.



The "material" world is what seems to be around us



I don't know what you mean. What is a material world?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
I know it's bad form to reply to yourself, but I realized that I didn't give a very good answer here.

I think that it is not really possible to just violate "one rule". The rules of nature are all intertwined. If you violate nature, you violate nature. If you can do it at all, even just a little bit, then the whole set of rules comes crashing down.

For instance, let's say you can "violate gravity", you can float. But then you could use that to generate energy. In fact, you could use it to propel a "perpetual motion" machine and generate infinite energy from nowhere. Then, you see, the whole thing stops making sense and we might as well just give up.

That's why if your belief system allows any violation at all, then you must accept that the whole thing is a deception, a fake set of rules that is put up just for your/our entertainment.

If you reject the belief that you are being intentionally deceived, and that things "are as they appear", then materialism follows, no?

Well, let's suppose that libertarian free will exists (ie my self is not the same as any physical events and my self has the capability to initiate events in the world). I suppose this would be a form of psychokinesis wouldn't it? I mean presumable at some stage neurons would start firing which could not be wholly explained by the totality of physical facts, but which are mentally caused. The energy used to initiate these events could taken from the body. So how would this contradict physical laws? I'm not sure if I understand the overwhelming difficulties here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR
[No, that's a non sequitur. You could simply say you don't know how they interact, or that they don't interact(Parallelism, Occasionalism).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked those two up here (first Google hit - not very deep, I know), since I'm not familiar with them:


Never heard of occasionalism and parallelism? Shame on you! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ChuckieR

Once you have the notion that we consist of something beyond the physical, there must be some mechanism or agent that coordinates the spiritual and the physical (even if the belief system does not give specific details, it must exist).



Why?

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My perceptions don't create reality, they are reality.

Thanks, I stand corrected.

then don't you have to believe that there is some deeper layer of "reality" that is hidden from you (or at least hidden from those who don't understand reality in the way you do)?

No, on the contrary, that's the position the materialist is forced into since qualia does not constitute the external world.
...
But what meaning does it have to say my actual taste of coffee is material? The neural correlates of taste are yes. But you need to state that the taste is logically entailed by the neural correlates. But nobody can demonstrate this.

I don't know what you mean. What is a material world?

This "realm of interaction" where all of the minds interact is what I call the material world. As you say above, your "neural correlates" occur in this material world.

If the mind is reality, why do we bother with this farce of restrictive, inviolate natural laws and feeble, temporary bodies?

Why does it appear that the Earth and the universe predate any minds (or at least predate any humans)? Why would we bother to construct these fake fossils? Just to trick and confuse people and cause this debate?

Why isn't it obvious to everyone that there is no material world. Why isn't it at least obvious enough, so that more people believe what you believe? Why bother making it seem (to most people) as if there is a material world.

It seems there is some intentional deception occuring here.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well, let's suppose that libertarian free will exists (ie my self is not the same as any physical events and my self has the capability to initiate events in the world). I suppose this would be a form of psychokinesis wouldn't it? I mean presumable at some stage neurons would start firing which could not be wholly explained by the totality of physical facts, but which are mentally caused. The energy used to initiate these events could taken from the body. So how would this contradict physical laws? I'm not sure if I understand the overwhelming difficulties here. If neurons fired w/out any physically understandable cause, and this was repeatably detectable "above the noise", then materialism would be in big trouble. It would be amazing to observe, because a lot of things have to be "in place" for a neuron to fire. So would the neuron just fire w/out those things being in place? If so, then, as you say, there must be some energy being injected that would "push" the neuron to fire even though physical conditions were not sufficient to cause the firing.

Of course, nothing close to this has been observed. I am fairly confident that nothing like this will ever be observed. So it's difficult to argue the specifics and mechanisms.

Of course, if perceptions are reality, then this "minor" violation is not a problem, since nature is not "real" anyway, right? If that's the case, if nature can be violated "just a little bit", then materialism is just a big delusion, a deception.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by ChuckieR

Once you have the notion that we consist of something beyond the physical, there must be some mechanism or agent that coordinates the spiritual and the physical (even if the belief system does not give specific details, it must exist).

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why?
I should have been more explicit...

Once you have the notion that something nonphysical interacts with the physical, then there must be some mechanism that coordinates or allows the interaction.

Of course, with some forms of idealism, there is nothing physical. Which begs all of the standard questions. If we are all separate minds, why do we all perceive the same physical limitations? Who/what coordinates this "realm of interaction" we perceive as the physical world. If we are all the same mind, why isn't this obvious? Why bother with this farce of all these non-physical yet physical appearing people running around "remote controlled" by this big mind? Why is the fact that we are all "one mind" not obvious (to most of us)?