0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume : materialists do accept , per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:29:31 the mental is more fundamental than matter How do you know this? Do you believe that before there were humans to think about the universe, nothing existed or could exist?
the mental is more fundamental than matter
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:11:53Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 19:01:19Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:50:14 Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none :They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin. There doesn't have to be a conflict between any religion and science. One question religion asks that science doesn't, is what is should we do? What's morally right? Some branches of ethical philosophy raise this question, but moral principles can't be derived from physical facts. Perhaps that is one reason Ethos does not see a conflict between his faith and science, although I don't wish to put words in his mouth.
Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 19:01:19Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:50:14 Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none :They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:50:14 Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?
But the "conflict" only seems to arise when people try to prove religious beliefs scientifically, or derive moral beliefs from physical facts.
Your assertion that materialism is a degenerate form of Christianity has no basis logically or historically, and I don't see how any particular religion "gave birth to" any area of science, even if some early scientists were also theists, or had the time and literacy skills to pursue science because of their religious occupation
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:39:10How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter ... Because I can't telekinetically put the garbage bin out to the curb for collection, nor can anyone else.
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:39:10Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .Nervous system , (including autonomic) , and endocrine system are sufficient to explain how brain and body interact.
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:26:30Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ? I think you need to rephrase your question if you are going to appeal to authority, ie "Who should I listen to you, or Sheldrake and Chris Carter's interpretation of modern physics?" And of course the answer is up to you.
Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:26:30Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume : materialists do accept , per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .Actually, the idea that only "like can cause like " seems to be a bigger tenet for you than anyone who attributes consciousness to emergent properties. You've said it over and over, that consciousness is "totally different" and can't be the result of brain states.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:39:10How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .It does seem that way, but there is an increasing amount of evidence that the sense of conscious agency is retrospective. In other news, appearances can be deceptive and intuition is often a poor guide to reality. Who knew?
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 21:26:30Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?You may believe whomever you wish. I have explained why the interpretation of QM in your quotes is mistaken, and provided supplementary support for what I said; so now you have extra information to inform your choice of belief. As Dr. Johnson would say, "Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding".
The general idea is that people reading the forum can look at the arguments, and, if they're interested, discuss it further, find out more themselves, maybe learn something, and perhaps even change their minds one way or the other. I do realise that very few people will read the forum, and fewer will be interested enough to find out more, and probably none will change their minds about anything; but it's all good practice.
QuoteYou're not a quantum physicist and you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .True, like yourself, I'm not a quantum physicist. Our arguments are what counts here, not our occupations.
You're not a quantum physicist and you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .
The view I'm 'displaying' is the view that, as yet, all the evidence points to the mind being the result of physical brain processes. You seem unable to distinguish between that and a "materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter". I can't help you with that; I can only refer you back to Dr. Johnson.
QuoteEven Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume : materialists do accept , per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .Neither Popper nor Hume were quantum physicists either, if that's relevant; if not, you'll have to explain in English what your point is here.
When you say "evidence ", i cannot but interpret it as materialist belief assumptions ,you do keep confusing with empirical evidence , as you have been showing all along .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2013 17:05:33When you say "evidence ", i cannot but interpret it as materialist belief assumptions ,you do keep confusing with empirical evidence , as you have been showing all along .The evidence is empirical, and indicates that conscious awareness of voluntary action is retrospective. This was discovered about 30 years ago by Benjamin Libet, and has since been demonstrated repeatedly by more robust experiments (e.g. Hughes, Simard, Vankov & Pineda). The arrival of fMRI has permitted more detailed exploration of this phenomenon. Brain activity related to particular voluntary actions is detectable up to 6 seconds before the individual is consciously aware of deciding to act, and when distinguishable choices are involved, it is possible to use this activity to predict the choice before the individual is consciously aware of making it. Useful summaries are in Awareness of Intention (the 'Sense of Agency' section is particularly interesting) and chapter 5 of 'Free Will and Responsibility' (scroll down - it's the first viewable chapter).That is the empirical evidence; interpret it how you wish.
Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally differently , as they do actually .
Since "the mind is caused by the brain ", then, there can be , logically , no existence of such notion such as the free will .
Talking about basing "empirical evidence " , or rather basing misinterpretations of scientific experiments on false a-priori held materialistic belief assumptions,regarding the mind -body relationship : how convenient .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2013 18:31:04Non-materialists might interpret those experiments totally differently , as they do actually .I'm interested to hear any interpretations - how do non-materialists interpret these observations?
QuoteSince "the mind is caused by the brain ", then, there can be , logically , no existence of such notion such as the free will .It depends on precisely how you define free will. I think there's a reasonable definition of free will that fits that model.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2013 18:45:10Talking about basing "empirical evidence " , or rather basing misinterpretations of scientific experiments on false a-priori held materialistic belief assumptions,regarding the mind -body relationship : how convenient .I haven't given any interpretation of these experiments. They show evidence of the subjects only becoming consciously aware of their voluntary decisions after those decisions have been made. You said non-materialists interpret them differently. I'm curious to know what those interpretations might be; do tell.
Never mind my interpretation; you said I confuse materialist assumptions with empirical evidence, but when I post some empirical evidence, you go quiet. C'mon, these are interesting experimental results, what are the non-materialist interpretations you spoke of? what is your interpretation? Please don't run away.