Randi, do not confuse you metaphysical belief (materialism) with Science

[Q-Source]

In the last commentary, James Randi explains how he has been accused by believers of being a materialist "locked in a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith", he cannot realise that by accepting that he is a materialist, he is holding a metaphysical belief.

Yes, Mr. Randi, you are holding a metaphysical belief that is not any different from any other belief in the paranormal or in God that you so much criticise. Saying that your world view is based on scientific evidence does not help a bit to support that your belief system is any different than other belief system.

Science is not equal to materialism, materialism is not equal to Science.

Quote:

Yes, I'm a materialist. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that has not happened — yet

For example, saying that consciousness arise from the brain is a materialistic belief. If you think it is not, then prove it.
(Note that this is not quite different from saying that Jesus arose from the dead).

While a materialist would make such claim, Science DOES NOT make such claims!

I am also a materialist, but I am intellectually honest to accept that my position requires blind faith in what Science might achieve. I would expect the same from you.

Q-Source

[Lord Kenneth]

Materialists believe that conciousness arises in the brain because that's the most rational position-- one with the most evidence.

We do not believe conciousness/thought arises in the heart, as the Egyptians did, because we know its function and that it deals with the circulatory system and not the nervous system.

Thinking conciousness arises from the brain is one claim based on evidence, not blind belief. Materialism, as well, is based on evidence: everything has shown itself to be physical in nature!

Now, saying that using the scientific method is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge is philosophic and uses reasoning, but of course is still open to debate.

[arcticpenguin]

No, Q-Source, it is not blind faith. It is based on evidence, as LK has done an adequate job of decribing.

I will also point out that the Materialist viewpoint is the only one compatible with science, because it is testable. If someone were to claim that the mind is not dependent on the material brain, how would you go about teesting that?

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
[b]Materialists believe that conciousness arises in the brain because that's the most rational position-- one with the most evidence.

So, you agree that is just a belief?. What is it different from believing in God or Santa Claus?

About "being the most rational position", I must say that it is a moot point. From whose point of view?. I am sure that an idealist will say that the most rational position is to say that consciousness does not arise from the brain.

Quote:

We do not believe conciousness/thought arises in the heart, as the Egyptians did, because we know its function and that it deals with the circulatory system and not the nervous system.

I agree that believing that consciousness arises from the brain is more "logical" than arising from the heart. But Science DOES NOT make such claims, Science still HASN'T FOUND how consciousness is created. Science does not require people to believe in anything. Materialism DOES. This is a big difference.

Quote:

Thinking conciousness arises from the brain is one claim based on evidence, not blind belief.

There is no evidence. SHow me the evidence!
Materialists claim this, Science does not claim that.

Quote:

Materialism, as well, is based on evidence: everything has shown itself to be physical in nature!

Materialism is not based on evidence at all. It is blind faith. How do you explain QM?
Can you tell me that you know the position and speed of an atom?, can you tell me what an atom look like?
What is matter?, is it local or non local?


]

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
No, Q-Source, it is not blind faith. It is based on evidence, as LK has done an adequate job of decribing.

I will also point out that the Materialist viewpoint is the only one compatible with science, because it is testable. If someone were to claim that the mind is not dependent on the material brain, how would you go about teesting that?

The best proof that materialism is nothing more than a dogma (and besides that it is false) came from Science itself, it was thanks to the discoveries of Quantum theory that we now know that matter does not exist in the way materialist thought.

[Lord Kenneth]

For one thing, I believe it is more correct to say that conciousness is a property of the brain, not "made" or "produced" by it.

You may call yourself a materialist, but you sure seem to have a dualistic sense of conciousness.

[Lord Kenneth]

Materialism isn't a religion, Q-Source... you are sounding like a "trojan-horse Interesting Ian", trying to discredit materialism by pretending to be a materialist.

Answer this: What is materialism?

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


The best proof that materialism is nothing more than a dogma (and besides that it is false) came from Science itself, it was thanks to the discoveries of Quantum theory that we now know that matter does not exist in the way materialist thought.

If it's physical in nature or arises through physical, natural means, then it is material, thus, materialism. Just beause theories regarding matter changed doesn't prove anything one way or another.

[Quasi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
Yes, Mr. Randi, you are holding a metaphysical belief that is not any different from any other belief in the paranormal or in God that you so much criticise. Saying that your world view is based on scientific evidence does not help a bit to support that your belief system is any different than other belief system.

On the first point, you fail to mention the fact that there are no observable events in metaphysics, where religious folk claim "miracles happen everyday." Materialism (a philosophy,) through science makes claims that anyone can duplicate, and are repeatable. So are they really the same? I would say not, further, every belief regarding God must be total faith, and the corrolaries to any of those beliefs are also just as probable because of this- so God may be "good" or "bad" and satan might just be the real good guy, you will never know, both beliefs are equal, have no utility and are nonsensical.

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

Science is not equal to materialism, materialism is not equal to Science. [/b]

I am not really sure what to make of the "materialism is not science" sentence. Science is a tool to determine the truth, and it makes progress. If you accept science, then you are holding materialist beliefs. If ESP were proven scientifically, then it would become a materialist belief, and I would consider it part of nature's wonders. As it happens, extensive research and experience have taught me no such thing exists. Once again, paranormal is metaphysical and circular, so you beleive in God because you believe in God, and there are no other reasons. I beleive in science/materialism because it produces observable results.

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
For example, saying that consciousness arise from the brain is a materialistic belief. If you think it is not, then prove it.
(Note that this is not quite different from saying that Jesus arose from the dead). [/b]

So you are refuting neurobiology? There is a mountain of data on this subject from psychiatry to cognitive neurobiology. Where to begin? Its all out there waiting for you to read, and I can't read it for you. If you do not want to see the other side of the argument, then you make the decision to remain ignorant, and be prepared for the consequences of the choices you make on "faith."

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
While a materialist would make such claim, Science DOES NOT make such claims! [/b]

I am not aware "science" or the scientific methods make any claims. Again, these are tools. If you have any better methods, I would like to hear it. First, you should familiarize yourself with Karl Popper, who summarized the scientific method better than any others I have read.

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
I am also a materialist, but I am intellectually honest to accept that my position requires blind faith in what Science might achieve. I would expect the same from you. [/b]

Actually, blind faith is not necessary at all. You can read how scientists know what they know, instead of the majority of Americans (not saying you are from the USA here,) who get their science from CNN or Fox news. There are many excellent introductory books on math, biology etc. Once you know the fundamentals, you can start to ask some tough questions.

I think we define metaphysical very differently. I define it as something which cannot be tested for falsifiability. I use the word philosophy to define materialism because it is testable. Does that make sense?

[MRC_Hans]

"Belief" is not a good term. "Working assumption", IMHO is the term that fits. All evidence we have points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain function.

Therefore, although we cannot at present explein how it functions, we materialists, as a working assumption accept this as being true.

The difference between "belief" and "working assumption" is that "belief" requires extraordinary evidence to be abandoned, whereas "working assumption" just requires the weight of evidence to move away. If you can present evidence of consciousness NOT being a brain process that outweighs the evidence that it is, then I, and any other honest skeptic will change our working assumption.

The ONLY reason that Skeptic=Materialist is that currently the weight of evidence is on materialism.

Hans

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Materialism isn't a religion, Q-Source... you are sounding like a "trojan-horse Interesting Ian", trying to discredit materialism by pretending to be a materialist.

Ha, you are trying to discredit my arguments by saying that I am not a materialist. I am a materialist but I am also intellectually honest.

I did not say that materialism is a religion, I say that Randi should deny that it is just another metaphysical belief!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Answer this: What is materialism?

Do you like this one?

Materialism.

Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist.

Skeptics dictionary

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

Ha, you are trying to discredit my arguments by saying that I am not a materialist. I am a materialist but I am also intellectually honest.

You're doing a fine job of discrediting yourself. And when you claimed there is no evidence that brain -> mind, you were not being intellectually honest. All the evidence we have points squarley towards that conclusion: mental effects on people with brain damage, effects of brain-altering drugs (Prozac works!) sticking probes into people's brains triggering perceptual phenomena, and a centuroy of electrophysiology.

You are either dishonest or remarkably ignorant.

[Lord Kenneth]

I think this one is more complete.

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtm...erialism&go=Go

Quote:

Materialism is the view that the only thing that exists is matter; if anything else, such as mental events, exists, then it is reducible to matter.... The definition of "matter" in modern philosophical materialism extends to all scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space.

[Andonyx]

Hmm, I thought it was pretty obvious, since we can test the following.

Take one person who posesses consciousness.

Remove brain.

Consciousness still exists?

No?

Well, we've narrowed it down quite a bit. At think from this demonstration we can assume the two are at least related.

[Lord Kenneth]

Also, for instance, take lobotomies-- changing someone's personality by removing a part of the brain.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Quasi


On the first point, you fail to mention the fact that there are no observable events in metaphysics, where religious folk claim "miracles happen everyday." Materialism (a philosophy,) through science makes claims that anyone can duplicate, and are repeatable.

DO NOT CONFUSE SCIENCE WITH MATERIALISM.
Materialism is a metaphysical position about reality. Materialists make claims that cannot back up ( those regarding consciousness and reality). On the other hand, Science does not make any claim that cannot back up. Everything that we know thru Science is because it is empirical testable.

Quote:

So are they really the same? I would say not, further, every belief regarding God must be total faith, and the corrolaries to any of those beliefs are also just as probable because of this- so God may be "good" or "bad" and satan might just be the real good guy, you will never know, both beliefs are equal, have no utility and are nonsensical.

I really cannot see the difference between a theist who totally believes in God and you, who totally believes that consciousness arises from the brain.

Quote:

If you accept science, then you are holding materialist beliefs.

Maybe, but materialism does not have the privilege of the achievements of Science.

Quote:

If ESP were proven scientifically, then it would become a materialist belief, and I would consider it part of nature's wonders.

I am not defending paranormal stuff.

Quote:

So you are refuting neurobiology? There is a mountain of data on this subject from psychiatry to cognitive neurobiology. Where to begin? Its all out there waiting for you to read, and I can't read it for you. If you do not want to see the other side of the argument, then you make the decision to remain ignorant, and be prepared for the consequences of the choices you make on "faith."

I know what neurobiology says and I know that this branch of Science is quite cautious to make any claim that couldn't back up. As far as I know there is not a description of how a physical process in the brain creates consciousness.

Quote:

I am not aware "science" or the scientific methods make any claims.

It doesn't, you are not paying attention to what I say.

Quote:

Again, these are tools. If you have any better methods, I would like to hear it. First, you should familiarize yourself with Karl Popper, who summarized the scientific method better than any others I have read.

I AM NOT ATTACKING SCIENCE! Why can't you see the difference between Science and materialism. This is the point of my thread. This is exactly my point.

Quote:

I think we define metaphysical very differently. I define it as something which cannot be tested for falsifiability. I use the word philosophy to define materialism because it is testable. Does that make sense?

Materialism is a metaphysical position, read the definition that I posted. Materialism is not testable.

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Hello Hans,

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"Belief" is not a good term. "Working assumption", IMHO is the term that fits. All evidence we have points to consciousness being a product of the physical brain function.

If you are referring to Science, then you are right, Science uses working assumptions that allow it to achieve its objectives and test some hypotheses. But materialism does not use working assumptions because it is not a tool to investigate anything.

Materialism uses the conclusions of Science and goes further to make unsupported claims, such as "all evidence points to..."

Quote:

Therefore, although we cannot at present explein how it functions, we materialists, as a working assumption accept this as being true.

Exactly, Hans. Science cannot explain how this happens, that's why Science does not provide any description of a brain process generating consciousness. However, materialists dare to say that consciousness arises from the brain, without any single proof.

Do you see my point, Hans?

Quote:

If you can present evidence of consciousness NOT being a brain process that outweighs the evidence that it is, then I, and any other honest skeptic will change our working assumption.

But why should I present evidence to support a negative hypothesis?, I am not claiming anything. It is you -a materialist- who is making a claim here. Science is not making any claim.

Q-Source

[Andonyx]

I think I'm starting to see what Q-Source is saying, but he did a damn fine job of obfuscating it until now.

Materialism, according to Q seems ot be not just saying that the best evidence we have indicates that there is no phenomena outside of matter, but that it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no phenomena outside of matter, and not just that it is most likely that consciousness arises from the brain, but it does in fact arise from the brain.

It's as though science puts the caveat that the best evidence we have indicates that consciousness arises from the brain....

and Materialism, again, according to Q-source, is saying, it is a proven fact.

In that sense, I guess he would be correct to say that technically it is a belief system , since you can't prove the falsity of consciousness arising form the brain.

But I still tend to agree with LK and Penguin, that materialism is like conservation of energy...

It's a theory still, but it holds up over and over and over again and all the best scientific evidence we have so far supports it. So for me to say I believe in Materialism, is no different than saying I believe in the conservation of energy. All the best evidence points to it.

[Q-Source]

To all,

This is not a discussion about consciousness. This is a discussion about how materialism is just another belief system that is not quite different from the belief systems that Mr. Randi criticises so much. Using Science to pretend that his beliefs are based on scientific evidence is -IMO- intellectually dishonest and deplorable.

Q-S

[Andonyx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
To all,

This is not a discussion about consciousness. This is a discussion about how materialism is just another belief system that is not quite different from the belief systems that Mr. Randi criticises so much. Using Science to pretend that his beliefs are based on scientific evidence is -IMO- intellectually dishonest and deplorable.

Q-S

But read my above post, that's not true. Materialism is not as you say equal to science, but it is certainly the most defensable position, and it is the conlcusion that the majority of evidence currently points to.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Andonyx
Materialism, according to Q......

It is not according to me, it is according to what materialism is. Many of you call yourselves materialists but do not have a clear idea what your doctrine holds.

I think you see my point.

Quote:

But I still tend to agree with LK and Penguin, that materialism is like conservation of energy...

It's a theory still, but it holds up over and over and over again and all the best scientific evidence we have so far supports it. So for me to say I believe in Materialism, is no different than saying I believe in the conservation of energy. All the best evidence points to it.

Ha, what about QM???? QM proves that all the materialistic principles are wrong.

Q-S

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
To all,

This is not a discussion about consciousness. This is a discussion about how materialism is just another belief system that is not quite different from the belief systems that Mr. Randi criticises so much. Using Science to pretend that his beliefs are based on scientific evidence is -IMO- intellectually dishonest and deplorable.

Q-S

Oh you get to set the rules, and we can't criticise laughable mistakes you made in support of your position? Bleep you!

As for your central point, I thought Randi handled this quite well in his Swift essay:

Quote:

Yes, I'm a materialist. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that has not happened -- yet. And I admit that the reason I'm unable to accept the claims of psychic, occult, and/or supernatural wonders is because I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments -- particularly those that appear to show violations of a rational world -- and a view which requires open examination of the methods used to carry out those experiments. The decision to be a materialist is my own, I made it after many years of consideration of what I observed, and after reading Bertrand Russell and others. Since it was not a mere reaction to incoming information, but the result of examining that information, I'm proud of my decision.
...
They say that while many skeptics disclaim any religious proclivities, yet, they add, upon careful examination, they too may often be seen to have a profound belief in what the credophiles see as the "metaphysical doctrine" that they call, "materialism." This doctrine, they say, denies the existence of such entities as minds, souls, and spirits, and asserts that the physical universe constitutes the entirety of reality. They point out that as materialism cannot be said to be scientifically or philosophically proven, this embrace on our part may be due to a reaction to certain events and trends in the history of science.
...
Similarly, skeptics do not attempt to prove materialism. It is simply the best, most logical, reasonable, explanation of the universe. That's using parsimony. And materialism can be tested -- a feature the credophiles often say is not acceptable nor necessary within their supernatural world-view.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


Ha, what about QM???? QM proves that all the materialistic principles are wrong.

Q-S

Please explain how Quantum Mechanics is not materialistic.

[Andonyx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source




Ha, what about QM???? QM proves that all the materialistic principles are wrong.

Q-S

Nevermind, I'm sorry I defended you. You haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

QM, by the way is not some magical force catch-all people who don't understand it can use to justify their beliefs in any quackery they want. And, according to LKs definition of materialism, there is nothing currently in QM theory that is outside the scope of materialism.

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hello Hans,

If you are referring to Science, then you are right, Science uses working assumptions that allow it to achieve its objectives and test some hypotheses. But materialism does not use working assumptions because it is not a tool to investigate anything.

Materialism, as I use it, is the working assumption of science. So far, nothing that does not fit into the basic assumption of materialism has been documented scientifically.

Materialism uses the conclusions of Science and goes further to make unsupported claims, such as "all evidence points to..."

How is that an unsupported claim? Can you point to scientific conclusions that do not support it?


Exactly, Hans. Science cannot explain how this happens, that's why Science does not provide any description of a brain process generating consciousness. However, materialists dare to say that consciousness arises from the brain, without any single proof.

Science has explained all observable properties of consciousness and shown that they are dependent on the brain's unimpeded function. Please explain the logic that leads to the conclusion that consciousness is NOT a function of the brain.

Do you see my point, Hans?

I'm sorry, no.

But why should I present evidence to support a negative hypothesis?, I am not claiming anything. It is you -a materialist- who is making a claim here. Science is not making any claim.

Science is making an assumption based on present evidence. If you want to challenge it, you must provide evidence that contradicts it.

Q-Source [/b]

Hans

[Bluegill]

Isn’t saying that Materialism is just another metaphysical stance analogous to saying that atheism is just another religion?

It seems to me that there is such a thing as “soft” Materialism, stemming from the observation that all of our experiences with the universe indicate that it has a truly consistent set of physical characteristics. Materialism, in this case, is simply the lack of belief in anything beyond this, until evidence is presented to warrant such a belief. Since it is simply a lack of a belief, I don’t think it should be considered an equal metaphysical stance – or even a metaphysical stance at all.

After this, people can debate whether “soft” Materialism must logically lead to “hard” Materialism, the same way it seems to me that many believe that agnosticism or “soft” atheism logically leads to “hard” atheism. But that seems irrelevant to me.

[DeathToSophists]

Quote:

Originally posted by Andonyx
Hmm, I thought it was pretty obvious, since we can test the following.

Take one person who posesses consciousness.

Remove brain.

Consciousness still exists?

No?

Well, we've narrowed it down quite a bit. At think from this demonstration we can assume the two are at least related.

This is a post hoc argument at best, and heres why:

Remove heart

Consciousness still exists?

No?

Well, we've narrowed it down quite a bit.

* * *

Science has actually confronted the problems with static variables in Physics; there are at least some scientists who would avoid any discussion about the "seat of consciousness" altogether.

Philosophers has gone round and round with issues ranging from Xeno's paradox to the "omni" arguements without asserting any definitive point of origin or absolute foundations to any observable, measurable phenomena.

It seems that absolutes are the realm of religious zealots and fanatics of any kind; including those fanatics who make claims in the name of science or reason.


* * *
Apropos of nothing, I'd just like to point out that the heart is the only other organ in the human body that contains a substantial amount of neural tissue (like the brain) and is a candidate for being the seat of consciousness if you are locked in to a localized view of such things

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by DeathToSophists


This is a post hoc argument at best, and heres why:

Remove heart

Consciousness still exists?

No?

Well, we've narrowed it down quite a bit.

Actually yes. I would presume you had heard of heart-lung machines.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Actually yes. I would presume you had heard of heart-lung machines.

Very sly.

OK, so try this one: Remove head -- still have consciousness? No. Sure the brain is removed in this scenario, but so is the jaw bone -- the true seat of consciousness.

[Lord Kenneth]

A better example is the fact that emotions can be roused by manipulating the brain.

After isolating all the variables, we know that the brain is the seat of thought. Conciousness ceases to be after removing the heart because blood is not getting pumped throughout the body, including the brain.

[Doubt]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Very sly.

OK, so try this one: Remove head -- still have consciousness? No. Sure the brain is removed in this scenario, but so is the jaw bone -- the true seat of consciousness.

Then there is that whole brain transplant problem…..

Consciousness appears to be tied to specific brains and is not transferable between them.

[Quasi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

I really cannot see the difference between a theist who totally believes in God and you, who totally believes that consciousness arises from the brain.
Q-S

First, thanks for the lengthy reply, I tried to be as clear as possible myself. I suppose since language seems to seperate us here I would like to use a small anecdote:
A man gets lost and comes upon a road. Two men are there, named "A" and "B." The lost man asks "A" where the nearest town is, and he says 1 mile south. He then turns to "B" and asks the same question. B says its 1 mile north, here it is on the map and here is the compass, see, it is 1 mile north. So the man takes it on faith the town is 1 mile south. After 2 miles, the man realizes he is going in the wrong direction and turns around. after three miles travelling north, he finds the town.

Anyway, if he had understood the science of cartography and unserstood how a compass works, it would have saved him a lot of time and energy. I hope this makes my position clear. This is my perception of the difference between science and materialism and faith based philosophies.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

I think you mean something different by "materialism" than Randi does, and for that matter, than most modern materialists do. What you seem to be describing is ontological materialism, which is as incoherent as any ontological metaphysical system.

Quote:

For example, saying that consciousness arise from the brain is a materialistic belief. If you think it is not, then prove it.
(Note that this is not quite different from saying that Jesus arose from the dead).

You appear to be operating under the misconception that the claim that consciousness arises from the brain is an assumption of materialism. It is not. It is a conclusion which has been drawn by applying the axioms of materialism (which assume that the scientific method should be valid) to our observations. The claim that consciousness arises from the brain is a scientific theory which is supported by substantial evidence. That is why materialists believe it.

Quote:

Materialists believe that conciousness arises in the brain because that's the most rational position-- one with the most evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you agree that is just a belief?. What is it different from believing in God or Santa Claus?

Isn't the answer to that question obvious? The belief that consciousness arises in the brain is supported by substantial reliable scientific evidence. The belief in God or Santa Claus is not based on any reliable evidence whatsoever. One is a rational belief, and the other is not.

Quote:

About "being the most rational position", I must say that it is a moot point. From whose point of view?. I am sure that an idealist will say that the most rational position is to say that consciousness does not arise from the brain.

Point of view has nothing to do with it. It is only rational to believe something is true if you have a logical reason to believe it is true. Scientific evidence provides such a logical reason.

Quote:

I agree that believing that consciousness arises from the brain is more "logical" than arising from the heart. But Science DOES NOT make such claims,

That is exactly the claim science makes. It is a scientific theory for which there is substantial scientific evidence.

Quote:

Science still HASN'T FOUND how consciousness is created.

Irrelevant. We have substantial reliable evidence that it is a brain process. The fact that we don't yet have a complete description of the mechanism is beside the point. Science has not yet found out how chemical properties arise from QM, but that doesn't mean that science doesn't claim that they do.

Quote:

Science does not require people to believe in anything. Materialism DOES. This is a big difference.

Reason requires you to believe that which there is substantial reliable evidence. It does not make sense to not believe something for which there is substantial supporting evidence. The idea that you shouldn't believe something unless you can absolutely logically prove it is true, is nonsensical. In reality, such proof is impossible. Knowledge is not absolute. It is perfectly reasonable for me to believe that the Earth orbits around the Sun, or that stars are large balls of hot gas. And it is perfectly reasonable for me to believe that consciousness is a brain process.

Quote:

The best proof that materialism is nothing more than a dogma (and besides that it is false) came from Science itself, it was thanks to the discoveries of Quantum theory that we now know that matter does not exist in the way materialist thought.

I thought you claimed to be a materialist? Claiming to hold a position in order to attack it more effectively is not a very honest debating tactic.

Incidentally, the above example just demonstrates why materialism is not dogmatic. When it was shown that our preconceptions about reality were false, materialism adapted. Indeed it is mainly because of the way QM and Relativity dispelled our naive notions about an ontologically material reality, that ontology was eliminated as incoherent from the materialistic philosophy. Modern materialism has no such ontological notions. It is an epistemological framework, not an ontological one.

Quote:

Ha, you are trying to discredit my arguments by saying that I am not a materialist. I am a materialist but I am also intellectually honest.

So you claim to hold a position you believe to be false? If you are a materialist, you are an extremely irrational one.

Quote:

Ha, what about QM???? QM proves that all the materialistic principles are wrong.

And yet you claim to be a materialist? I think that the only thing that you have proven is that you are being dishonest.


I would agree with the statement that materialism is not science. What you don't seem to understand is that materialism is the basis of science. Materialism starts with some axioms and definitions (note that the axioms are epistemological, not ontological). From this the scientific method can be logically derived. We then use science to draw conclusions about the world from our observations.

In other words, materialism is the philosophical world-view, and science is the epistemological tool it uses to determine what the nature of the world is.

Dr. Stupid

[Lord Kenneth]

Very well written. I can't believe I didn't catch him claim to believe something and then say it was false-- good job.

[Soapy Sam]

Seems to me we are arguing (as so often) over definitions.
Given:-
Belief is a form of thought.
Thought either (a) arises from a material substrate (probably the brain) or (b) does not.
If (a), then thought is metaphysical. So belief is metaphysical. Any belief.
If (b), we have no idea what thought is, so belief may or may not be metaphysical.

I don't see that this really gets us anywhere. Even if all thought is metaphysical, it need not be irrational.

Materialism and science are not the same thing. Correct.
Did someone say they were?

[Lord Kenneth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Seems to me we are arguing (as so often) over definitions.
Given:-
Belief is a form of thought.
Thought either (a) arises from a material substrate (probably the brain) or (b) does not.
If (a), then thought is metaphysical. So belief is metaphysical. Any belief.
If (b), we have no idea what thought is, so belief may or may not be metaphysical.

I don't see that this really gets us anywhere. Even if all thought is metaphysical, it need not be irrational.

Materialism and science are not the same thing. Correct.
Did someone say they were?

I believe the problem lies in Q-Source's head, not definitions (this time, that is).

Or else he has no idea what materialism is...

[arcticpenguin]

I believe Q-Source is a she, and I am still waiting for the explanation of how QM disproves materialism.

[Diamond]

Memo to self: first read the entire thread first idiot

Quote:

Originally posted by Quasi


A man gets lost and comes upon a road. Two men are there, named "A" and "B." The lost man asks "A" where the nearest town is, and he says 1 mile south. He then turns to "B" and asks the same question. B says its 1 mile north, here it is on the map and here is the compass, see, it is 1 mile north. So the man takes it on faith the town is 1 mile south. After 2 miles, the man realizes he is going in the wrong direction and turns around. after three miles travelling north, he finds the town.

Anyway, if he had understood the science of cartography and unserstood how a compass works, it would have saved him a lot of time and energy. I hope this makes my position clear. This is my perception of the difference between science and materialism and faith based philosophies.

Ah but you say the man is lost, that means that even with a map and a compass he would still have to rely on blind faith that "B" is telling him the truth about where he is on the map !!!!

not that i'm trying to make a point here, i think Randi's commentary was excellent

[fishbob]

QS says:

Quote:

Materialism is a metaphysical position, read the definition that I posted. Materialism is not testable.

Can't test the concept, can't provide evidence, endless attempts to define terms, no apparent progress. What is the point of discussing materialism or metaphysics? (Other than to get Ian all worked up).

I, too, think Randi's commentary was excellent.