[Grimbo1]

Besides Don I have read loads about this theory. You may have started this thread
but its hardly a new theory is it. and it most certainly is not yours. faith in the immaterial is
as old as the human race. 

[Grimbo1]

If a belief= unfalsifiable = unscientific, how can you post it on a science forum as a new scientific theory !!

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Thanks Ethos but I can look after my self ok.
Don
I may not have been here long but I have read this thread.
Your right that Science should be metaphysically neutral but what you don't seem to understand
is that it is neutral. the problem is on body has ever demonstrated anything non  materialistic.
call your friend Karl Popper in his grave. If he answers get him on here, then you will have a convert.

( Prior note :
Science does not require materialism,my friend,  as science does not have to be materialist ,as science has been for so long now ,simply because science ,in its ideallistic form at least , should be neither materialist nor otherwise ,and simply because materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness that's irreducible to the physical or to the material , as physics and chemistry  alone  cannot explain  or account for  "everything " .
The current false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been trying indeed to explain 'everything" , just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ,since it has been assuming so wrongly that reality is just material or physical, thanks to materialism thus .
Consciousness as the anomaly that proves materialism to be false ,and hence the mind is not in the brain, or the mind is not brain activity ,consciousness thus cannot be accounted for by the materialist version of evolution, and hence even evolution itself cannot be exclusively biological or material physical ....to mention just that ,for the time being at least .)

It's pretty undeniable that science has not been metaphysically neutral ,since the 19th century at least = science has been materialist since then , while science should neither be materialist nor otherwise,in principle at least  .

But , since science is just a human activity , just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in all of us , then science cannot be metaphysically neutral .
Metaphysically neutral science is an utopia , a myth so far , for ever maybe .

As atheist Thomas Nagel said in his fascinating "Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false " book (Nagel should have titled that book of his " Why the materialist ...conception of nature is certainly false " in fact ) , he said, in similar words to the same effect at least  :
Since consciousness is irreducible to the physical or to the material , then reductionism is false ,and since materialism requires reductionism ,then materialism is also false .
And then a bit further ,he goes on by saying ,  the materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature will be most probably just replaced by yet another false conception of nature , a non-reductionist naturalist one at that ,the human will to believe is inexhaustible , he added .

So, since science is just a human activity , human beliefs are unavoidable in science .

As for Karl Popper , let's just mention his falsifiability theory regarding any theories ,ideas , insights ............that should pass the falsifiability test in order to be able to be raised to the scientific status : the materialist 'all is matter , including the mind " mainstream "scientific world view " does not only fail in that falsifiability test , but it is also ...unfalsifiable = unscientific .

According to Popper thus , the only way to distinguish science from pseudo-science is by applying the falsifiability test to any given theory which pretends to be scientific .

Popper,unlike B.Russel ,  did succeed indeed in solving Hume's logical rejection of induction dilemma ,induction  without which science is not suppoed to exist , by admitting that induction does not exist indeed ,so, he argued that human knowledge or science are not inductive , but merely a matter of try and error ,which also means that no scientific theory out there , no scientific knowledge out there can be  true (science is not about the truth indeed ) , no matter how many amounts of unsuccessfull  falsifications of those scientific theories or knowledge are accomplished , and it would take only 1 single successfull falsification of any given scientific  theories to declare them as false .

Materialism is not only unfalsifiable , but it does also get 'corroborated verified and predicted by everything " ,the latter is not a strength , but a weakness .

Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Happy new year ,and nice weekend as well .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If a belief= unfalsifiable = unscientific, how can you post it on a science forum as a new scientific theory !!

I haven't been posting any "scientific " theories based on belief ,simply because all beliefs are unfalsifiable = unscientific , but they are not all necessarily false , as materialism is .

All i have been trying   to do is to make you realise  that the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been just the materialist false conception of nature = a belief = unfalsifiable = unscientific ,and hence the mind is not in the brain, or the mind is not brain activity .

That's why we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable = scientific theories of consciousness ...........

I did post some excerpts of some scientific and of some philosophy of the mind books which were trying to come up with  faslifiable  non-reductionist  theories of consciousness , and even with some  falsifiable  non-reductionist quantum theories of consciousness such as that of Henry P.Stapp ....as well, so .

[dlorde]

Yeah, right <bs snipped>

We've provided reasoned arguments based on multiple examples of clear empirical evidence that are inconsistent with your claims. You've provided nothing but bare, unsupported assertion and vague, speculative hand-waving.

You can't help but be well aware that if you wish to have your proposal of there being something more than the physical taken seriously, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Your assertion of some extraneous immaterial non-stuff, defined only by what it is not, and with unknown provenance and properties, is incoherent, unsubstantiated, and unfalsifiable faith.

I suspect you haven't even attempted to make a coherent argument for it because you know there isn't one beyond vapid speculation, and that your repeated insulting rants are because you know all the evidence is inconsistent with your claims and you realise that the 'immaterial', by definition, is unlikely ever to supply any in favour. It's a matter of an incohate faith in pursuit of the indefensible and undefinable. Good luck with that.

Blue Fairies on the Moon are every bit as real, and much more entertaining.

[dlorde]

I did post some excerpts of some scientific and of some philosophy of the mind books which were trying to come up with  faslifiable  non-reductionist  theories of consciousness , and even with some  falsifiable  non-reductionist quantum theories of consciousness such as that of Henry P.Stapp ....as well, so .

You do know that quantum mechanics is entirely physical, don't you Don? If quantum mechanical effects really did explain consciousness, it would torpedo your immaterial external consciousness claims.

But if you'd read Stapp properly, you'd have seen that he's just trying to find a suitable gap in QM (in his case, the uncertainty of the stochastic collapse of the wave function) where he can shoehorn in some unexplained immaterial agency. I refer you back to previous criticisms of the problems with such attempts, on this thread.

[alancalverd]

So, it is an undeniable fact that all sciences for that matter have been assuming that reality is just material or physical = all is matter , including the mind, thanks to materialism ...

No. Once again, science is a process, not a philosophy. You really need to understand the difference.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Yeah, right <bs snipped>

We've provided reasoned arguments based on multiple examples of clear empirical evidence that are all inconsistent with your claims. You've provided nothing but bare, unsupported assertion and vague, speculative hand-waving.

You can't help but be well aware that if you wish to have your proposal of there being something more than the physical taken seriously, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Your assertion of some extraneous immaterial non-stuff, defined only by what it is not, and with unknown provenance and properties, is incoherent, unsubstantiated, and unfalsifiable faith.

I suspect you haven't even attempted to make a coherent argument for it because you know there isn't one beyond vapid speculation, and that your repeated insulting rants are because you know all the evidence is inconsistent with your claims and you realise that the 'immaterial', by definition, is unlikely ever to supply any in favour. It's a matter of an incohate faith in pursuit of the indefensible and undefinable. Good luck with that.

Then, go read Nagel's, Sheldrake's, Carter's, Chalmer's ,Searle's , Stapp's and other excerpts i have been posting on the subject ,concerning the falsehood of reductionism .
Your materialist beliefs you take for granted as science are just acts of faith grounded in a 19th century   false  ideology,no science  .
Science has been providing nothing ,how can science do just that ?, that supports the materialist extraordinary claims neither regarding the materialist nature of reality , nor regarding the "the mind is in the brain " extension of materialism ,that's just a materialist belief assumption, no empirical fact .

You refuse to address my repeated simple question ,regarding the non-existence of any extraordinary evidence for the materialist extraordinary claims regarding the nature of reality ................

You keep on believing that "the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity ", without any sort of conclusive empirical evidence ,since science cannot so far , if ever , link conscious subjective  states or experiences to brain activity ..........

You just assume that the tv set or radio device do create their own received respectively images and sounds , or broadcasts : you keep on believing that Obama does live inside of the tv , as Hitler was living inside of the radio .......... when the tv set or radio are damaged ,and you cannot  find no Obama inside of the tv ,or Hitler inside of the radio , then they were created by the tv set or radio ...haha

I told you many times , as Nagel did , that since consciousness is irreducible to the physical or to the material , then reductionism must be false , and since materialism does require reductionism, then , materialism is also false , which means that we should be looking for non-materialist or non-reductionist theories of consciousness at least ,while providing some such as those of Chalmers , Searle , Stapp ..............

I also have been repeating the fact that since there are still no serious non-materialist falsifiable theories   of consciousness out there today  , that does not mean that materialism is not false ...

What do you want more then ?

Stop confusing science with materialism then : science does not either require materialism or needs to be materialist : science should be neither materialist nor otherwise , in principle at least ,but fact is : science has been materialist ,since the 19th century at least , while science should be in fact metaphysically neutral , in principle at least .

So, stop projecting your own materialist non-sense on me , please .

Ciao .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

So, it is an undeniable fact that all sciences for that matter have been assuming that reality is just material or physical = all is matter , including the mind, thanks to materialism ...

No. Once again, science is a process, not a philosophy. You really need to understand the difference.

Undeniable fact is : science has been materialist since the 19th century at least , while science should be neither materialist nor otherwise : science should be metaphysically neutral ,in principle at least = the latter is an utopia or a myth so far .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I did post some excerpts of some scientific and of some philosophy of the mind books which were trying to come up with  faslifiable  non-reductionist  theories of consciousness , and even with some  falsifiable  non-reductionist quantum theories of consciousness such as that of Henry P.Stapp ....as well, so .

You do know that quantum mechanics is entirely physical, don't you Don? If quantum mechanical effects really did explain consciousness, it would torpedo your immaterial external consciousness claims.

But if you'd read Stapp properly, you'd have seen that he's just trying to find a suitable gap in QM (in his case, the uncertainty of the stochastic collapse of the wave function) where he can shoehorn in some unexplained immaterial agency. I refer you back to previous criticisms of the problems with such attempts, on this thread.

What is matter ? Is it entirely physical or material ? nevermind :  matter might turn out to be not made of matter , after all , so to speak thus .
Stapp tried  to prove the undeniable fact that the mind has causal effects on matter ,an undeniabke fact you do experience every single day of your own life ,don't you ?

How can the mind that's allegedly a product of brain activity have causal effect on matter , brain and body , and hence on brain activity as well?

How can the mind have causal effects on brain activity that has allegedly created it : is that some sort of weird absurd backward form of causation ? haha : the mind causing brain activity that has allegedly caused it ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

David Cooper :  Help :

Please , haha , do try to address some of this inexplicable materialist magic in science ,pleeeaaasssseee  haha .

Amazing how people confuse science with materialist inexplicable magic ,no wonder , most scientists today do , as the mainstream 'scientific world view " has been ...materialist ,for so long now, no wonder  .

Centuries long materialist brainwash indoctrinations conditioning are not that easy or that quick to ...undo indeed .

It takes  a lots of  time, patience , energy , a lots of persuasive  repetitions ...and much more to try to do just that .

But my time , energy , patience ,and even my desire,appetite  and passion to do so are running out ,folks .

I am only human, all too human, you know .

I should get paid for investing so much time, energy ....on this in fact ,but , i have been rewarded for that via a lots of priceless insights , ideas , inspiration .....from unexpected sources and people anyway  .............

"The gain is worth the loss " anyway .

But , to be honest , my patience is nearing its end .

So, folks, try to make some effort to undo that materialist brainwash in yourselves at least .

Good luck .

All the best .

[Ethos_]

What is matter ? Is it entirely physical or material ? nevermind :  matter might turn out to be not made of matter , after all , so to speak thus .

"Matter might turn out to be not made of matter"

Unquestionably the most incoherent disconnected semantically distorted rational I've ever heard in my 71 years.

Matter is just the name we give to localized orbital energy flux. If matter is not made of matter, one would be just as correct to say:


Water isn't made of water
Air isn't made of air
Stupid isn't made of stupid

You're playing with words Don......., really beneath your apparent intelligence??

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

[David Cooper]

I can't help you Don - there's too much here to read and too much repetition to make it rewarding, so I only skim through it every day to read other people's posts (not yours) so that I don't miss anything interesting that appears in them. I do think you've achieved something remarkable in tying up so much talent here. That's a win, I reckon.

[Ethos_]

There is a very good reason Webster's publishes their dictionary. It's called continuity of language and without it, none of us would be able to understand each other properly. It's a similar situation with the scientific method, without the testing and verification that repeatable results obtain, scientists would all be speaking different languages. It's why, we require evidence that all participants can observe and form a common consensus that offers the progress we all desire.

Webster's.................evidence;
something that makes another something evident
a sign
a statement of a witness
an object

In short; evidence is something witnessed, a sign and or an object

If it's witnessed, it can be measured.
If it's a sign, it can also be measured.
If it's an object, it can be measured as well.

Sir Don,....................when you have verified measurement of the so-called non-material, present it to us. Maybe then we'll find something to agree upon, until then, you have presented no evidence......... period.

[cheryl j]

Wrong , lady :
Materialism is false , not because it cannot explain 'everything " (materialism is just a false conception of nature without any explanatory power whatsoever in fact .)  , but mainly because it cannot account for consciousness that's irreducible to the physical .

Well, person with a Y chromosome, neither can your immaterial dualism  explain consciousness, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
 

My tons of posted material and excerpts on the subject do say why , relatively speaking , you just don't listen to them .
(Not to mention that you should try as well not to take that promissory messianic materialism argument " out of the closet , in the sense that materialism will be 'explaining " tomorrow what it cannot "explain"

You are more than willing to accept any promissory, messianic claims from people like Sheldrake or Carter. Why do you apply a different standard to them? 

Simply because materialism has no explanatory power whatsoever , once again ,due to the fact that materialism is just a belief ,no science

Chemistry and physics has explained many things, and you have admitted this in the past. I'll go back and find your statements to refresh your memory.

Not to mention the fact that the false materialist world view has been equated with "the scientific world view " ,while materialism is just a belief = unfalsifiable = unscientific ,despite its scientific claims.

How does requiring evidence for any particular claim constitute "a world view"?

Otherwise , try to deliver the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism, regarding the nature of reality then.

Extraordinary evidence is not required. Only verifiable, reproducible results for each specific observation.

As a belief= unfalsifiable = unscientific ,as all beliefs are by the way  , as a belief thus ,materialism goes beyond science , beyond its scientific method thus , beyond science's jurisdiction and realm, by pretending to know the nature of reality already

I've never seen a scientific experiment in any journal about "the nature of reality".

The materialist mainstream "scientific world view " has been assuming , for so long now , that reality is just material or physical, including the mind

Wrong, person with Y chromosome.It doesn't assume that. It just requires evidence from anyone who claims a supernatural or immaterial process is a mechanism for why something happens. It requires the same thing from anyone claiming a new, unknown material mechanism, so there is no double standard.

You simply cannot deny the undeniable fact that all sciences for that matter have been dominated by the materialist meta-paradigm ,the latter that has been taken for granted as "the scientific world view " .

If it has been "dominated" by that view, it is because of the failure of those who believe in the supernatural to deliver evidence for their claims, not because of "secular" conspiracy against it.

[dlorde]

Your materialist beliefs you take for granted as science are just acts of faith grounded in a 19th century   false  ideology,no science  .

Straw man - I already told you my view.

You refuse to address my repeated simple question ,regarding the non-existence of any extraordinary evidence for the materialist extraordinary claims regarding the nature of reality

Because it's another straw man. As I've told you repeatedly, it's not possible to find evidence that some unspecified unknown non-physical or 'immaterial' doesn't exist. My view (again) is that we simply follow the evidence. We have plenty of evidence of the material, none whatsoever of the immaterial. Until we have some evidence, we have little choice but to deal with the material.

Yet again - if you can suggest a practical way to investigate your proposed immaterial non-stuff, we can try it. All attempts to date have failed, so I'm not holding my breath.

You keep on believing that "the mind is in the brain, or that the mind is just brain activity ", without any sort of conclusive empirical evidence ,since science cannot so far , if ever , link conscious subjective  states or experiences to brain activity

I'm just following the evidence, which will never be 'conclusive' if you propose the involvement of something unspecified, unknown, undetectable, and unfalsifiable.  However, in most cases, we can say that a theory can explain the observations beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no need to invoke the involvement of anything unspecified, unknown, undetectable, and unfalsifiable. As Laplace (apocryphally?) responded to Napoleon's query of the absence of god from his analysis, "I had no need of that hypothesis". In the case of consciousness, the growing accumulation of empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the immaterial hypothesis and entirely consistent with the material hypothesis, suggests to me that it is now beyond reasonable doubt. Your mileage may vary.

You just assume that the tv set or radio device do create their own received respectively images and sounds , or broadcasts : you keep on believing that Obama does live inside of the tv , as Hitler was living inside of the radio .......... when the tv set or radio are damaged ,and you cannot  find no Obama inside of the tv ,or Hitler inside of the radio , then they were created by the tv set or radio ...haha

It has already been explained to you why that is a fatally flawed analogy. You seem to have the memory (or comprehension) of a goldfish.

I told you many times , as Nagel did , that since consciousness is irreducible to the physical or to the material , then reductionism must be false , and since materialism does require reductionism, then , materialism is also false...

I also have been repeating the fact that since there are still no serious non-materialist falsifiable theories   of consciousness out there today  , that does not mean that materialism is not false ...

What do you want more then ?

Certainly no more repetition. Constant repetition doesn't make your logic less flawed. If you start with false premises, the whole house of cards falls. You have started with an unfounded assumption to reach the conclusion you desire. It is not known whether consciousness is reducible to the physical or not - although the evidence strongly suggests that it is, and you have yet to supply a good reason why it should not be.

There are many things we haven't yet explained or understood that we have good reason to believe have a material basis. You have said yourself that materialism is unfalsifiable, so to claim that the unexplained somehow falsifies it is absurdly contradictory.

... science should be in fact metaphysically neutral , in principle at least .

As I've said several times, I quite agree. That my expressed opinion doesn't suit your agenda is your problem, not mine. Inventing world views and beliefs to project onto others is a transparent ploy you use habitually to cover the pointlessness of your claims. Everyone else here is well aware you're attacking a fantasy adversary, just like your namesake.

Tilting at windmills.

[dlorde]

... matter might turn out to be not made of matter , after all .

I think that sums up your level of argument.

How can the mind that's allegedly a product of brain activity have causal effect on matter , brain and body , and hence on brain activity as well?

How can the mind have causal effects on brain activity that has allegedly created it : is that some sort of weird absurd backward form of causation ? haha : the mind causing brain activity that has allegedly caused it ?

That's an equivocation of 'mind', semantic games. The mind is brain activity.

[cheryl j]

... matter might turn out to be not made of matter , after all .

I think that sums up your level of argument.

How can the mind that's allegedly a product of brain activity have causal effect on matter , brain and body , and hence on brain activity as well?

How can the mind have causal effects on brain activity that has allegedly created it : is that some sort of weird absurd backward form of causation ? haha : the mind causing brain activity that has allegedly caused it ?

That's an equivocation of 'mind', semantic games. The mind is brain activity.

E gads! I've missed so much. "How can the mind have causal effects on brain activity that has allegedly created it : is that some sort of weird absurd backward form of causation ? haha : the mind causing brain activity that has allegedly caused it ?"  It just gets crazier every day.

[dlorde]

E gads! I've missed so much. "How can the mind have causal effects on brain activity that has allegedly created it : is that some sort of weird absurd backward form of causation ? haha : the mind causing brain activity that has allegedly caused it ?"  It just gets crazier every day.

I know; every time I think I'm bored with it, he comes up with some even loopier variation on the theme - it's like a car crash, a fascination with the tragic makes it hard to look away. [xx(]

[cheryl j]

Why is the mind irreducible to the material? That has never been fully (and Don is a big fan of "fully") explained. What is it - specifically - about the mind that is not explained? If it's memory, then lets talk about memory. If it's creativity, then let's talk about creativity. If it's "free will" then we can talk about free will. Or qualia. Or what ever you want.

So, Don, take your pick of the mental aspect of consciousness that can't be explained by materialism - cowboy up. Let's stop zig-zagging back and forth.