Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 58
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternativesPage 2 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Appreciative this is what you said your version of Indian Metaphysics is and why it is better than how you understand materialism.




With Experience as the Fundamental and Ultimate Reality...this innermost Self at the center of each of us, the Experiencer, is the Ultimate Reality...innermost Self, the Experiencer, is the one entity that isn't an object of experience, isn't a "thing" describable, point-to-able, knowable. A no-thing. Nothing....So, if the one entity that we know the existence of is Experience, our own inner Self, then, from the above, that innermost Self must be the Ultimate Reality...


In another post you defined ultimate reality as:



"A reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality"...There is definitely an ultimate reality.


From my understanding of your position the Experience is "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality." That the innermost self is the experience and so a "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality." Further that the experience/inner self/"reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality" is a nothing which definitely exists.

Even if your argument that materialism is arbitrary is a valid one are you seriously arguing that the position above is a better alternative? If I believe this I have to accept that my innermost self is all of reality and a nothing which exists. I understand your position that 'we' are all of reality and nothing, unified and separate, and that the "I" exists and doesn't exist.

Tell me why I should accept these contradictions as a better alternative.

Do you realize that your premise that experience is all that is knowable is defeated by your conclusion and your Ultimate Reality is shown to be not Ultimate Reality? What it amounts to is:

We are a unity and so we are not separate as experience suggests. Our innermost selves must then have the same experiences and so knowledge; knowable/unknowable. The I dissolves into a we and the we reduces to the I; my experience is our experience and our experience is my experience. However because experience is a nothing, nothing experiences. Thus what I know is nothing; meaning I know that I wrote this post but I do not know because nothing knows.

I being everything which knows and does not know includes you as being me. Since we are one and separate that knows and does know are everything and nothing. Ultimate reality knows and does know, and exists and does not exist, is us and not us, is I and not I, and "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality" and simulatenously not "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality." To conclude from what you say Ultimate Reality is not Ultimate Reality!

And this is better?

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 59
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:16:49 AM
I being everything which knows and does not know includes you as being me. Since we are one and separate that knows and does know are everything and nothing. Ultimate reality knows and does know, and exists and does not exist, is us and not us, is I and not I, and "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality" and simulatenously not "reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality."


And so, App is basically arguing with himself.

Edit:

Perhaps he can get this guru to give him a hand.

http://tinyurl.com/yen6prr
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 62
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 5:56:01 PM
Appreciative:

I take it that you do not appreciate the joke. Oh well.

However, you did say that innermost self is ultimate reality and that ultimate reality is "A reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental or general reality." This leads one to conlcude that the innermost self is a reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental reality. This itself is ridiculous.

You also said that the innermost self is a no-thing. Given you also said the innermost self is ultimate reality, this no-thing is a reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental reality (for the record I am not sure what a no-thing except I know I am not a no-thing).

You also said that Experience is the innermost self and so Experience is a reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental reality. The question I have is how does inanimate objects fit into all this. A rock that has never been experienced surely should still be included in ultimate reality. If it lies outside of experience it lies outside of innermost self and so ultimate reality. If you argue that the rock experiences and (you said experience is what we know) then the rock knows and you need to explain which way a rock knows.

Your statement that possibilities exists as possibilities is conversial. You have to show in what way possibilities exist. You can say that possibilities are conceived as possibilities but not that they exist as possibilities.

Your discussion on materialism is also just as ridiculous. It takes more faith to assume that ultimate reality has purpose and meaning than it does to say that there is no ultimate purpose and meaning. If you are searching for an ultimate meaning to existence then you are prescribing something more to reality than what is needed meaning what is in addition to reality is a higher or ultimate meaning that we can provide evidence to. A materialist lacks belief in an ultimate meaning and nothing further is needed from them except to show how everything works.

You also work from the assumption that a metaphysical materialist accepts that reality just is as it is or is a number of possible realities of which we part of just one. Materialists have physical explanations and theories that are testable that explain why physical laws are as they are. Those more scientifically inclined are more able to explain what those are. For instance I was reading about a theory (put forth by Stuart Kaufmann article found in Discover Magazine) that suggests physical laws are not timeless and static but evolve much like the biosphere. Again there are always alternatives within a materialist framework.

You also confuse fact, truth, and knowledge. Something is a fact if it exists. Truth is regulated to language as a value to a statement such as its truth function. Knowledge is a little more confusing but tentatively can be described as a relation between the brain, a fact, and awareness to the fact (often via a statement).

You also forget that these "biocomputers" as used described it are not just passive but active agents in creating the world around them. They affect the physical world as they are part of the physical world. As active agents they also perceive the world around them and are not just governed by physical processes outside of them. They thus observe reality that is external to them. There may not be an external being observing the whole, but there are billions of us who observe the world from their vantage point (which I find more pleasing to contemplate). For something to exist (a fact) it does not require an on-looker and to say that it does is add more complexity.


Also a materialist does not have to believe in an ultimate reality. Given that whatever exists changes, there is nothing ultimate about it. The materialist can also argue that processes that govern change are only conceptual tools that help to understand why reality is the way it is and does not actually exist as a fact.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 63
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:03:10 PM

Anyone who holds that the scientific method, empirical measurement, or sensory perception is the only path to knowledge have to deny that humans (and themselves in particular) are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong in any meaningful sense.


But that is completely missing the point. The application of the scientific method has nothing to do with arbitrary concepts as "right and wrong." Those are the "social contract" individuals have with society in general as evidenced by the fact that different societies have different definition of "right and wrong." Would any of us have wanted to live in Spartan society, for instance?

The scientific method only seeks to build models that adequately explain the world we see in an objectively observable and robust way. Why things work the way they work. It has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality, God or gods.

Materialism is a philosophy. As I tried to explain to Appy (should have written more slowly, I guess), science is the nuts and bolts of getting the data.


He likes to say that atheists can be moral without god or gods or spiritualism or mysticism. Oh ya? Prove it!


Um....since the opposite assertion is that you need god, gods, spiritualism or mysticism to be "moral," give examples where this has been the case. Now expect the falsification (i.e. the Crusades) to come raining down.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 64
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/24/2010 7:32:52 PM

Rhino said that I post more than others. Could that be because I'm replying to maybe a dozen or more people? Predictably, if I reply to each, I'll be posting more than they post per person. Additionally, I've posted some messages that aren't replies, but which instead are discussions of this thread's topic, under the heading of "Comparison of Metaphysicses".


Look up! There goes the point you missed.


No fraudulent quotes. You said that I was trying or claiming to disprove science. We both know that I said no such thing.


Oh, do please cite a concrete example. What I've said is that you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Materialism is a philosophy. Science is an application. Mysticism is about supernatural explanations for things.



And what would that "ultimate reality" be?


I refer you to parts 2 to 5 of my "Comparison of Metaphysicses" posts in this thread.
Repeating everything for you becomes a waste of time.


I actually did read it. It had a certain but not surprising lack of clarity.


The Ace Reporter has taken someone else's subject line, and reported as a quote from me. No, I never said that. It was someone else's subject-line.


Okay, you got me on that one. Mea culpa. I notice you can't help but get a petty, childish dig in too. Ah, App. Your true self comes shining through.


I'm referring to the impressive amount of faith and devotion shown by people like you, who make a "cargo-cult" religion of science. The Materialism metaphysics is part of your religion, but your emotional investment in your beliefs, and your strong and angrily-expressed devotion to them, qualifies you as fully religious.


Ah yes, the tired old "science is religion" refrain. Actually, with statements like this and the previous, it amazes me how quickly you turn your post from being about ideas to being about personalities. Set up a characterization of the person so you can then attack that perception as if you're attacking what you believe to be the person's position. Two words: "Straw" and "Man."


No, metaphysics isn't about the description or workings of the physical world. That's physical science's job.


Oh, so you believe in science? You recognize that "metaphysics" is a philosophical approach and science is the more practical "rubber meets the road" approach? Trouble is, you're arguing strawberries with your mysticism approach.

I just wish you had the courage of your convictions to acknowledge what's so painfully obvious to the rest of us.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 65
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/24/2010 8:42:16 PM
Uhm...may I say something?

Op, you have expounded much upon your view of materialism, but I have yet to see your display of knowledge on the Upanishads...could you please clarify?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 66
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:14:36 AM
No worries, Mike. I should have also added "convenient."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 67
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 12:11:52 PM

so I will type slowly for your benefit.


Oh joy. Another one. *yawn*


But wow, right and wrong are merely arbitrary? That sort of attitude could explain why so many people have trust issues these days. I wouldn't want someone getting all arbitrary on my feelings.


Well now, talk about a subjective statement.


And dollars to donuts that most if not all Spartans would jump at the chance to come live in the 21st century.


Oh really? And how do you draw this conclusion? Because you like living in the 21st Century and you wouldn't want to live like a Spartan?


the scientific method has nothing to do with morality as its tools are completely inapplicable to the task, but a non-physical component of the universe is necessary for morality to be anything but arbitrary, or at best an argument ad baculum writ large.


So are you speaking strictly from a hypothetical standpoint or are you arguing that, yes, in fact the 10 commandments really did come down from Mt. Sinai and were inscribed by the finger of God?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 68
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 1:29:50 PM

But wow, right and wrong are merely arbitrary?

To the extent that right and wrong are defined by consensus, yes. Murder is wrong because the vast majority of people don't want to worry to much about getting killed if they piss someone off. To insure that everyone doesn't have different ideas about circumstances that might justify killing someone, we pass laws that are intended to enforce that concept by appealing to people's self-interest, i.e., if you kill someone, you are going to be confined to a prison cell for a long time. If it weren't for that, a lot more people would think it's ok to kill other people.

The fact that morality has varied from century to century and even in different regions of the world, means that different cultures have different notions of right and wrong. Do you think it's wrong to kiss someone in a restaurant? Most people in the US wouldn't think so. In Dubai, that isn't the case. Last week, I read an article in the newspaper that said a couple in Dubai are spending 3 months in jail for doing just that. Given that, explain to me whether kissing in public is right or wrong and why in a way that eliminates any arbitrariness.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 72
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 2:57:27 PM
What a joke. The nature of science is being explained to us by Stargazer, who has demonstrated an abyssmal ignorance and pitiful unqualiflication and confusion about science and related topics. As I said, a scientist-wannabe




I love it!

Appy criticises me for being aggressive and rude while being one of the worst offenders. Oh yeah...you might want to learn the spelling of the word d-o-m-a-i-n. Apparently, not only are definitions subject to Appy's special interpretations, so is spelling! Oh, when you were unsure of the name Demmett, did you actually mean Sir Michael Anthony Eardley Dummett? It's a little think called "research." You might want to try it. Hilarious!!!!

As I said-hypocrite.


That's where our Science Worshippers practice their religion, when they try to elevate science into a metaphysics.




He shows his own wilful ignorance of science, materialism, metaphysics and mysticism and yet we're supposed to take his word on everythhing. Oh yes! Love the "science is religion" tack. You'd make a great Creationist Appy.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 75
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 3:12:50 PM

II. Indian Metaphysics

[end of outline]



Op, you have expounded much upon your view of materialism, but I have yet to see your display of knowledge on the Upanishads...could you please clarify?


I am going to take a stab here that you really don't know very much about Indian Metaphysics (mysticism) or the Upanishads or the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita for that matter.

I really don't think you have managed to prove anything about scientists...except for your own ignorance of such.

And I was really hoping for an intellectual discourse on Brahman. Oh, well...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 76
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 3:16:02 PM
And I was really hoping for an intellectual discourse on Brahman. Oh, well...


From App? You're wasting your time. You might want ask him about Billy Goats and living under bridges, though. Trolls are expert on those.


It would seem that scientific illiteracy, in this instance, is found together with illiteracy by its original definition. I had just finished saying, as I've said many times, that science is not religion.


Troll, correct theyself. I didn't say you said science is religion. I was saying you were making the accusation that people who follow and have an actual understanding of science turn it into a religion. It's the typical strawman argument employed by the equally ignorant and uninformed young-Earth creationist.

 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 77
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/25/2010 3:17:43 PM
Try a science thread :-) This is a philosophy thread. On the science/philosophy forum.
Hello? You're reading and posting to a philosophy thread.


The "Philosphy" being adjunct to "Science" implies context, ...it was intended when it was added. You may have better luck in the Religion/Supernatural forum, ...both of these forums were renamed to avoid the posting of threads by those who ....don't "get" context.


elevate science into a metaphysics.

Elevate?


Uhm...may I say something?

Op, you have expounded much upon your view of materialism, but I have yet to see your display of knowledge on the Upanishads...could you please clarify?
I am going to take a stab here that you really don't know very much about Indian Metaphysics (mysticism) or the Upanishads or the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita for that matter.


I'd like to see this too, ...I'm not expecting much of a "display" though.

OP, ...if you do, be aware that there are people who CAN display knowledge on these things on this thread, ...is this the reason for your reticence?
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 79
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/25/2010 3:41:27 PM
The picture of ambiguity, ...no surprise.

casuistry |ˈka zh (ə)wəstrē|
noun
the use of clever but unsound reasoning, esp. in relation to moral questions; sophistry.
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 81
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:04:54 PM
app




Dalane75 obviously was highly motivated to find something wrong with what I'd said, probably because I'd just questioned how "scientific" he really is


Actually that had nothing to do with it. I don't view myself as all that scientific so a charge such as that means very little to me. I pay homage to science are view science as the best method a materialist has.

However, I found it prudent, given you are not able to undertand that the materialists in this thread disagree with your definition, that I would show how even if your definition accurately defines materialism, the way you work from that definition is misguided. I attempted to move the debate on and so jokingly made fun of your position by showing how easy it is to talk nonsense. More importantly I was tired of arguing about it (definiton of materialism) and decided to move on.




when he showed that he was having trouble with the difference between a definition and a statement of fact.


I have no trouble with differences of definitions and statement of facts. What you fail to realize is that definitions can be shown to be inaccurate and definitions can be called into question. Definitions are argued over quite often, which means definitions are called into question.

This is what I said


I am a materialist and I have argued a materialist position without being exposed to your definition of materialism. I believe this calls into question your definition.


I questioned your definition by showing how your definition does not agree with a position held by many materialists which suggests it does not accurately portray a materialist. Your defining materialism as a belief and then stating what that belief is, amounts to uttering a statement that holds truth-value- what materialism is. Thus your definition is an unequivocal one. As you treat it unequivocally, you are making it into a statement of fact. As such it is questionable.

I argued materialism is a much more flexible view (and we know we are not discussing materialism meaning greed) and so its definition, the way we use it, and what is implicated with that use should be more flexible as well. I guess such an argument is too much for you to comphrend though.



The center of perception of experience, at the center, if of course not accessible to perception by you, for the obvious reason that it's you. From that, and the fact that it has no attributes or description:


You really did not understand my last post did you. I passed over the known and unknown. My main argument directed towards your IM addresses your claim that my innermost self is ultimate reality. You defined ultimate reality as "a reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental reality." According to you then my innermost self is a reality that isn't subsumed by or within a more fundamental reality. If this is the case then inanimate objects that exist and have never been perceived are outside of that reality and so there most be something more fundamental to reality beyond my innermost self. If the rock exists outside my innermost self then there is a more fundamental reality. If the rock is one with my innermost self then you have to explain how that rock is part of my innermost self.

My challenge addresses your claim of unity and its claim of not being arbitrary. If there is something that exists outside of my innermost self then reality is made up of a plurality of parts so not unitary. If a rock exists outside of my innermost self then defining ultimate reality as my innermost self is more arbitrary than your definition of materialism. I see no reason that my innermost self is ultimate reality when I could just as easily define ultimate reality to include that rock. Such a stance is less arbitrary and more inclusive.

I asked you to explain how this is not the case, but you completely avoided that task.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 82
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:55:24 PM

You again reveal that you can't read.


And you again reveal your true colours.


Most of the Science Worshippers on this forum aren't scientists. Do some actual scientists (no, not you, Stargazer :-) make a religion of science by trying to elevate it to a metaphysics? How would I know?


And again. I guess we're all just supposed to sit here, compliment you on your cleverness and don't dare question the great intellect ( ) you would like to think you are.


And, as for "actual understanding of science", are you referring to yourself? :-)


No, I was referring to you.

Clearly this is little more than a vanity thread for you. Personally, I'm done. I have no more interest in feeding your overblown ego and substandard intellect.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 6:41:00 PM
there are many more things true than we can prove.

some of us care.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/25/2010 10:44:26 PM
material would not exist without the fine tuned laws of physics.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 1:39:14 AM
science is at a very early stage, and very limited in what it can do in the visible world.
never mind beyond the physical.

boy, it would be a pretty uninteresting 'dead' life to only base your beliefs on facts, which in themselves are hard to prove and seem to be arbitrary also, [and they change]

we all believe in some unproven things.
it's impossible not to.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 86
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 7:38:18 AM

we all believe in some unproven things.
it's impossible not to.


It's in comments like this that I begin to understand the stridency of Richard Dawkins and a certain unnamed editor of New Scientist Magazine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik) that it hearkens back to the "science is religion to its adherents" crap constantly regurgitated by the creationist crowd.

Evidence doesn't require belief or faith. It only requires acceptance. Scientists like Dawkins time and again have acknowledged that theories like evolution (or big bang, or any other fundamental theory of the natural world) could be replaced tomorrow if evidence could be found that does a better job of explaining current observations and predicting future results. One example cited is if someone found a mammal fossil in pre-Cambrian rock, for instance.

No wordplay, mystical or metaphysical machinations are going to change that basic fact.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 7:10:26 PM
stargazer

evolution is 100% wordplay.

and I guarantee that stargazer can not prove it to be true.

and I will repeat that everyone believes in unproven things.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 95
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 7:20:21 PM

evolution is 100% wordplay.

and I guarantee that stargazer can not prove it to be true.


aremeself:

Creationist dogma. The kind of rhetorical BS usually trotted out by you guys...deny the evidence and yet demand evidence.

Tell you what...try proving creation without invoking evolution. Prove the existence of God. If you believe we were created, surely you have actual proof of the creator.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 96
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 7:37:41 PM

evolution is 100% wordplay.

Wordplay implies fallacious logic and trickery. The explanations for evolution are devoid of all those things. In fact, that lack of trickery is what converted me from a creationist to an acceptance of evolution.

and I guarantee that stargazer can not prove it to be true.

There is no sufficient proof for those who have their mind made up beforehand.

everyone believes in unproven things.

Conceding evolution as one example (you're welcome), what else?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 7:47:39 PM
thanks for asking, though rudely, can't stop that, can you?

I will tell you what convinces me, [it obviously doesn't convince you] which you and everyone already knows, it's real simple.

now, you don't have to convince me, [you can't, no proof] but just tell me what honestly convinced you, that's all, fair?

here's the deal, the theory of evolution is without contest the most ridiculous idea ever put forth, so we'll have to see the proof that will convince all those idiotic scientist with real jobs. [creationist scientists]

It's not just me you know.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 98
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 8:55:14 PM
[creationist scientists]

Creationist scientists?

Tell you what, ..let's put aside the ridiculous assertion of a creator (violating the law of parsimony), and just consider:

What have they contributed by way of byproducts of their assertion of a "creator"?

Compared to pretty much the entire body of work represented by modern medicine, genetics, biology, etc. which is part and parcel of the scientific fact of evolution and the theory that explains it.

Hmmm?


It's not just me you know.

I know, and I've asked this question of all of them I've ever encountered and the only answer I've ever gotten (including having asked it of you countless times) is silence.

Why is that?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >