[grizelda]

فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،

Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".

Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،

Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".

Haha Very funny .
Where did you study Arabic ,sis : Google translation sucks really = hilarious .
I am rather flying via  both of my wings , while you , folks , are flying just via one of your wings , while assuming that your other wing does not exist , but do not worry , i will be there to save you from your inevitable fall haha

Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.

The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as  that of the medieval church haha

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?

Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.

Well,ok, have it your way then, or just  let me go along with you for a change then, just for our discussion's sake then :
Has science ever disproved the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ?

What statement ? determinism or predictability ? = do kiss them goodbye= the maths of chaos did destroy that myth  .
Not everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , obviously .
Otherwise , try to explain or rather try to predict the economy , politics, societies, cultures , history, .......consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , life as a whole ....just via physics and chemsitry then = cannot be done, obviously .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

To the Mod  who wrote the following :

[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.
What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.
Did you read what you were posting?]

I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
That was just something to "test the amazing predictability extraordinary powers of our alancalverd , that's all : i thought you have noticed just that  already  .
As an Arab, it's pretty logical to assume that i do know Arabic, don't you think ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..

If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?

Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.

You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try.

[/quote]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

[Kryptid]

Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?

[SimpleEngineer]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

But shouldn't science be able to form its own boundary, and give you proof that there is more than physics and chemistry, In fact that is what science is all about anyway. Science does not look to prove or disprove the presence of metaphysical forces, it just tries to see if metaphysical forces are really involved and not some application of chemistry or physics that could then lead to us harnessing or manipulating things for the betterment of technology and mankind. If we all of a sudden found out.. "what is life" we would be able to take serious leaps and bounds in medicine (and technology) that would improve the lot of mankind. Is this such a bad thing to try for?

[David Cooper]

I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .

Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.

[Nizzle]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .

Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.

[/quote]

Oh, so : thanks for the tip indeed : Mr.Dave the computer specialist at work , nice .

[grizelda]

The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as  that of the medieval church haha

Great slogan: You should paint it on the side of your tank and come out to play.

[cheryl j]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?

Exactly.

I don't see the gain of inventing an additional system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your other system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?

Exactly.

I don't see the gain of inventing an entirely new system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!

Well, we have no choice but to accept the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ,whether we do like it or not , regardless of what  science can or cannot explain (We cannot simply dismiss or ignore  what science cannot explain  as if that does not exist ,we should rather try to find some new ways of understanding this intelligible universe  as a whole , or just what we can understand of it , not dismiss and ignore what we cannot describe understand or explain a-priori   by reducing the whole universe to just what we can explain describe or understand .) , if we wanna try to describe explain or understand reality as a whole, or rather just the parts of reality science can deal with empirically :  science is not a matter of belief taste , like or dislike , or opinion, science is  a matter of facts , remember .
We cannot just pick the parts of reality we like ,via some belief of ours  on the subject  ,  if we want science to deal empirically with the parts of reality it can deal with , instead of confining science to just the part of reality we like or to what we believe it is reality as a whole,  while taking that specific part of reality  for granted as the whole real thing : otherwise , that would be an irrational illogical and even an unscientific assumption to hold or make or thing to do .
Science by the way is or rather  should be just an effective tool instrument tool to try to describe explain and make us understand the parts of reality it can deal with empirically ,which does mean that there are some other parts of reality science cannot deal with empirically , obviously , but that does not mean that all what science cannot deal with empirically does not exist as such : one cannot dismiss that just because science cannot , per definition deal with it empirically .

I do think , see what Nagel had to say on the subject here above while you are at it , i do think that when science will be liberated from its materialist dogmatic belief system, from its materialist "scientific world view ", science will be able to expand its scope reach realm and jurisdiction exponentially in yet-unimaginable ways to us all .
Only time will tell then .

P.S.: To pretend that science , as science has been assuming thanks to materialism,to pretend thus that science  already knows the nature of reality as a whole already (wao ), so only the details should be filled in ,  is simply ludicrous and unscientific thus, not to mention that to pretend that we can explain everything , as physicists and other scientists do, as science has been pretending thanks to materialism , is simply ludicrous and unscientific = science cannot , per definition, explain everything , not even remotely close thus = science's naturalist  realm and naturalist jurisdiction do not  and cannot  ,per definition, cover the whole reality as a whole as such , obviously   .

[Kryptid]

I really wish DonQuichotte would stick to addressing points one-by-one instead of posting TLDR-style slabs of text...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?

[/quote]

Physics and chemistry can explain just the biological hormonal ...or neuro-chemical side of feelings , emotions ,stress ... but they can absolutely not account for how we feel what we feel or rather for the very nature or origin of feeling emotion as such : our biological system alone  cannot account for the feeling of pain as such , for example , the feeling of sadness, joy , happiness , the feeling of marvel at things , the feeling of music , the feeling side of love, the feeling of the smell  of a flower ....the feeling of a color ...
When fire , for example, burns your finger , you feel the pain of burning which makes you try  instinctively  to remove your finger from the source of fire  : science can explain why and how you remove your finger from the source of fire that did cause that pain of burning , but science cannot account for how that feeling of pain per se arose , so to speak, from the biological system of yours : only sentient beings such as yourself do feel pain , so, if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain  then  ,say, that are related  to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged  which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
The readio and tv analogies are just that : analogies, but ,both the radio and the tv set + the signals they recieve are material , while human consciousness is immaterial + the physical brain and the immaterial consciousness are 1 in the same given body.

I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .

[Kryptid]

if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .

How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?

Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .

If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.

I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .

Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .

How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?

Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus  .

Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .

If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.

200 years of attempts to 'find " or "localise " memory "traces " up to this present date   in the physical brain failed to do just that , for obvious reasons , simply because memory cannot be reducible to the physical, simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot account for memory that cannot be reducible to the physical, memory that's not physical thus  .
That memory disappears when certain specific areas of the physical brain are damaged , that does not necessarily means that memory is "localised or stored " in the physical brain : that alleged causation is no explanation , even "factual" causation is no explanation either :  there is not even causation in fact , can't be , simply because there can be no causation between the physical and the non-physical , simply because there can be no causation between those 2 totally different processes qua their totally different respective natures (even the "factual " causation between physical processes  themselves  might be just an illusion even, as David Hume assumed , a long time ago thus  ) :  i think that we should rather try to approach that just in terms of some sort of correlation or  interaction between memory that's just a part of consciousness as well as a part of the sub-consciousness ,some sort of correlation or interaction between the non-physical memory thus and the physical brain : how ? : beat me , i dunno .
Or , there might be somethingelse going on between the non-physical memory and between the physical brain we do not know nothing of yet , if ever thus .

In short :

Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the non-physical memory thus :
(Science has been dominated by that mechanistic false materialism that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view ", since the 19th century at least  : that machine or computer analogy in science thus in relation to life as a whole , to reality as a whole ,in relation to the whole universe thus that allegedly does behave like a clock work machine , that Newtonian mechanistic materialism  is false thus = living organisms are ,obviously no machines or computers :
Have you ever seen any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of self-organization , self-maintenance , self-sustainance ,relatively speaking then, that are capable of self-reproduction or self-replication , reproduction or replication, that are capable of adaptation , flexibility , evolution , that do have those unique- to- living -organisms metabolisms ...?
Have you  ever encountered any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of growing from some of their most smallest components such as genes ,cells ... ?)
you are just reasoning via some sort of "materialist promissory messianism " ,in the sense that the materialist false 'scientific world view " will , some day , in the future be able to "localise " memory in the physical brain = that will not happen ,ever, obviously ,  simply because physics and chemistry cannot account for memory , simply because memory cannot be 'stored " in the physical brain, memory that's not reducible to the physical , as consciousness is not , obviously : i thought that my earlier provided analogies did succeed somehow in drawing you a certain pic regarding why memory and consciousness cannot be in the physical brain .

When science will be liberated from its false materialist reductionist naturalist "scientific world view " , via replacing it by a more or less valid non-reductionist conception of nature, then and only then ,can science expand its realm beyond the material or physical one it has been confined to , thanks to materialism thus , and therefore ,man will be able to find some new ways of understading through science that might lead to new unimaginable-to-us-all-yet  discoveries  on the subject and maybe beyond as well, who knows .
I do also think that there are some significant parts of reality that will remain beyond science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well .
Science cannot , per definition, explain "everything " , not even remotely close thus , not even just at the physical or material level of reality , let alone beyond .

I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .

Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.

"Promissory messianic materialism " : see above .
I think that consciousness is non-local : it does exist within and without , in every atom, organ and cell of ours and without : consciousness that's not reducible to the physical thus , consciousness that's not physical and non-local thus  .

[alancalverd]

So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.

Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus  .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process  = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts  .
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe  permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus  = who does ?

[Kryptid]

Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus  .

And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).

Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus  .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process  = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts 

There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).

Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe  permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus  = who does ?

That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.

Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?