[cheryl j]

The mental is the one that's more fundamental than the physiological ,not the other way around .The mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material

Your statement that the mental is irreducible to the physical is an assertion, not a fact.  It's based on your  impression that they "seem" different or "feel" different to you, and therefore cannot be the same things, or causally related. It would be equally difficult to convince someone who didn't know anything about physics that different forms of energy (radiant energy, chemical energy, electrical energy etc.) were in any way related, or could be converted from one form to another because they "seem" so different. It would be difficult to convince someone with no understanding of photosynthesis how a plant pulls off "the materialist magic trick" of converting radiant energy from the sun to chemical energy in a tomato.

Water, ice, and steam all have very experientially different properties but are the same thing. Even a non-scientist accepts this because  as children, we all watched this transformation take place, and verified that no one substituted a cup of water for an ice cube while our back was turned. But if one were never actually able to observe the process, it might be difficult to believe water could be changed in something that looks, feels, and behaves so qualitatively different.

I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's ideas were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets. I doubt even physicists who understand relativity can actually personally "experience" time in any other way than all humans do. It's only the theories, the math, and reproducible, empirical evidence that tells them that their perception of it is wrong, or at least limited.

It's just my opinion, which you are free to reject, but I think your reliance on your own experience of  "thoughts" "ideas" "emotions" as being intangible, ethereal, somehow substance-less, is a major reason why you reject  any explanations involving neurons and biochemistry.

What makes you rather think that the mental can be inherited only physiologically just via genetics or via epigenetics ? How can that happen then ,since the mental is irreducible to the physical ?

Are you aware of this paradox ?

It's not a paradox to me because I don't agree that the mental and physical are two completely separate things. I'm not a dualist.

What makes you think that inheritance can only be material , that it can only either be  genetic or epigenetic  ? What makes you exclude any non-physical form of inheritance then ?What makes you exclude the non-physical ,non -genetical ,non-epigenetical form of inheritance ?

 I don't exclude it. Science doesn't exclude it. But you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to show that can be. Just saying "what if" or "how do you know it doesn't happen" isn't enough. It's not enough to make an idea like immaterial inheritance a scientific theory. It's stuck at being just a fanciful idea, without some kind of evidence for it.

What makes you think that science proper will not be able to discover those non-physical forms of inheritance , after rejecting materialism thus ?[/i]

Who knows, maybe it will. Science doesn't exclude the possibility. There's just no evidence for it so far. I don't understand your need to reject everything that has been explained so far by chemistry and physics, because of that possibility. A discovery like that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every other scientific finding, any more than epigenetics destroyed Natural Selection - it simply added more knowledge and better understanding.

[dlorde]

Repeated* LSD use isn't  necessary for a long-term effect : one use can be sufficient for permanent psychological injury ...

Sure, but chronic psychosis is extremely rare.

The extreme hyper-real / traumatic ("bad trip") LSD experience , like an extreme exogenous experience , can permanently reshape the person's psyche thereafter...

Yup, as can any traumatic experience, like a car accident, or a mugging. With psychedelics it's pretty rare. Naturally, the media ensure we hear about those instances. Ironically, LSD is a promising candidate for PTSD treatment (as is ecstasy).

[dlorde]

You have to try to reconsider your own views regarding what science might be :

I've reconsidered my views about it many times, and continue to do so. If you could provide some coherent argument I'd take that into consideration too, but I'm still waiting to hear it.

[dlorde]

The inheritance of certain mental illnesses ,for example, cannot be just the work, so to speak, of genes or epigenetics ,simply because the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material : there might be some extra form of inheritance of the mental out there thus .I dunno : it just does not make sense to reduce everything,including the mental and psychological thus ,  to just the material or physical , to just genes physics and chemistry ,as the false mainstream "scientific world view " has been doing ...

My bolding. You're right; you don't know, and your incredulity is irrelevant. The genes involved in many heritable diseases have been identified, including some mental illnesses. Only a small minority of genetic diseases or disabilities are easily identifiable by a single dominant or recessive allele; the majority involve the interactions of many genes, and may require particular environmental contexts to be expressed. But when the pattern of inheritance of a mental disability matches the pattern of inheritance of a known genetic disease, a reasonable person suspects a similar genetic mechanism at work. In some cases, particular genes will predispose to certain behavioural tendencies, depending on the environment; for example the expression of a certain gene will predispose an individual to violent behaviour, but only if they have an abusive childhood. We should also expect random mutation to cause mental disabilities just as it causes physical disabilities; in this case, we would not expect to find a family history of it, but the incidence should be fairly consistent within the population.

We know that those abused as children often go on to abuse their own children, and without a detailed genetic analysis of many such instances, it's not possible to know how much genetics is directly involved, if any. So here is a potential non-genetic inheritance of undesirable behaviour. But there is also a reasonable and adequate well-established material explanation, i.e., conditioning. How you are treated as a child affects how you treat your children. These ideas are easy enough to test by looking at siblings raised by foster parents, identical twins raised by different parents, etc. Much work has been, and is being done, in these areas.

If you can provide an example of a mental disability that has no apparent genetic component and clearly does not originate from developmental influences, let me know, and we can... assess how likely it is to be of 'immaterial inheritance'? how would we do that? Surely the only reasonable path is to look for material causes because we can't look for immaterial causes. If we find no material cause, science will say, "unexplained", and you can say "see? it's immaterial!" (but only until science finds the material cause) []

Of course it's possible that we will discover new mechanisms that can account for inheritance of traits and characteristics otherwise unaccounted for, science doesn't rule novelty out, but for serious consideration, you either need evidence of a new mechanism, or some data that isn't explained by the current model.

Go for it - let us know when you've got something interesting.

[dlorde]

... I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's idea were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets.

Indeed - and consider Einstein's response to quantum mechanics; he could never accept the underlying ideas, yet they turned out to be behind the most precise theory we ever constructed.

Don's intuitions are understandable, but as Gladwell explains in 'Blink' and 'Outliers', intuition without expertise in complex situations is asking for fail. Apparently Don has it in spades.

[Ethos_]

Medically speaking, this forum has been infected with the DonQuicho-virus. I think it's time for some serious treatment!!!!!

[dlorde]

Medically speaking, this forum has been infected with the DonQuicho-virus. I think it's time for some serious treatment!!!!!

[]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Medically speaking, this forum has been infected with the DonQuicho-virus. I think it's time for some serious treatment!!!!!

[/quote]

It's about time to apply the materialist inquisitions, you mean , by burning the heretic Don, right ? 
You do like this kind of barbecue , i see .
Got some sort of refutations of what i have been saying ? Guess not .
Bon appetit,Mr . Cannibal  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's idea were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets.

Indeed - and consider Einstein's response to quantum mechanics; he could never accept the underlying ideas, yet they turned out to be behind the most precise theory we ever constructed.

Don's intuitions are understandable, but as Gladwell explains in 'Blink' and 'Outliers', intuition without expertise in complex situations is asking for fail. Apparently Don has it in spades.

[/quote]

Ironically enough , i have read yesterday a part of this interesting book written by Chris Carter " Science and psychic phenomena : the fal of the house of skeptics " ,concerning the nature of science where Karl Popper was quoted by saying that he was fascinated by what Einstein said in a conference ,concerning his relativity theory ,that it took him years to come up with a solution to Hume's logical paradox concerning induction :
Einstein said something like the following :
No amount of verification or falsification of my theory ,now or in the future , can ever prove it to be true .
Karl Popper then went on talking about Hume's rejection of induction ,and about Bertrand Russell' s  attempts to address the latter while failing to do so .
Karl Popper's solution for Hume's logical rejection of induction was marvellous,induction without which science cannot exist or function  ,and therefore there would be no way to differentiate science from insanity or from pseudo-science  :
Karl Popper proposed that universal induction can only exist logically ,if we would take into consideration that it can only be temporary , in a form of a conjecture , not in a form of absolute truth :
A certain scientific theory ,or scientific knowledge as a whole , can thus only be conjectural ,not definite truths .
Scientific theories must  be falsifiable and can thus be proven to be false , but can never be proven to be true definitely : scientific theories and paradigms can compete with each other , and the ones which do happen to have more explanatory power take the upperhand, temporarily  ,thinks like that .

Which also means that the current materialist false -meta-paradigm that has been taken for granted as an absolute truth , that has been ossifying itself into a dogma thus ,by becoming unfalsifiable and thus unscientific , are reasons enough to abandon it .

The rise of anomalies such as consciousness , for example , are sometimes reasons enough to bandon the existing paradigm or meta-paradigm in science ,or at leat to try to modify them  somehow : in the case of materialism : no amount of modification can solve its falsehood : materialism must be thus rejected by all sciences thus .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The inheritance of certain mental illnesses ,for example, cannot be just the work, so to speak, of genes or epigenetics ,simply because the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material : there might be some extra form of inheritance of the mental out there thus .I dunno : it just does not make sense to reduce everything,including the mental and psychological thus ,  to just the material or physical , to just genes physics and chemistry ,as the false mainstream "scientific world view " has been doing ...

My bolding. You're right; you don't know, and your incredulity is irrelevant. The genes involved in many heritable diseases have been identified, including some mental illnesses. Only a small minority of genetic diseases or disabilities are easily identifiable by a single dominant or recessive allele; the majority involve the interactions of many genes, and may require particular environmental contexts to be expressed. But when the pattern of inheritance of a mental disability matches the pattern of inheritance of a known genetic disease, a reasonable person suspects a similar genetic mechanism at work. In some cases, particular genes will predispose to certain behavioural tendencies, depending on the environment; for example the expression of a certain gene will predispose an individual to violent behaviour, but only if they have an abusive childhood. We should also expect random mutation to cause mental disabilities just as it causes physical disabilities; in this case, we would not expect to find a family history of it, but the incidence should be fairly consistent within the population.

We know that those abused as children often go on to abuse their own children, and without a detailed genetic analysis of many such instances, it's not possible to know how much genetics is directly involved, if any. So here is a potential non-genetic inheritance of undesirable behaviour. But there is also a reasonable and adequate well-established material explanation, i.e., conditioning. How you are treated as a child affects how you treat your children. These ideas are easy enough to test by looking at siblings raised by foster parents, identical twins raised by different parents, etc. Much work has been, and is being done, in these areas.

If you can provide an example of a mental disability that has no apparent genetic component and clearly does not originate from developmental influences, let me know, and we can... assess how likely it is to be of 'immaterial inheritance'? how would we do that? Surely the only reasonable path is to look for material causes because we can't look for immaterial causes. If we find no material cause, science will say, "unexplained", and you can say "see? it's immaterial!" (but only until science finds the material cause) []

Of course it's possible that we will discover new mechanisms that can account for inheritance of traits and characteristics otherwise unaccounted for, science doesn't rule novelty out, but for serious consideration, you either need evidence of a new mechanism, or some data that isn't explained by the current model.

Go for it - let us know when you've got something interesting.

[/quote]

You can try to sing all night and day long about my presumed ignorance or incredulity , but , you can't make the fact go away that you all have been unable so far to understand my point of view ,regarding the inheritance of mental illnesses and regarding the possible inheritance of the psychological and mental effects of  past tragic events by the next generations and beyond .

Mental illnesses , for example , that can be inded inherited , do have 2 sides to them : the physiological and the mental, the latter that's irreducible to the physical :
So, the inheritance of those mental illnesses does happen physiologically and mentally : the physiological part of those mental illnesses is a matter of biology genes, and the mental aspect of those mental illnesses thus might be passed on non-physically , i guess .
But , since , you cannot but reduce everything to just physics and chemistry , thanks to materialism thus , you cannot but reduce the inheritance of mental illnesses  and the rest  ,and all other forms of inheritance , including the epigenetic enviromental one , to just ...physiology thus .
Get that ?

In short :
Only when science will reject materialism , only then ,science will be able to discover non-physical forms of causation , including non-physical forms of inheritance that  are just the other side of the genetic or epigenetic forms of inheritance , since everything in nature is both material physical ,and non -material non-physical, including life that's both a material physical biological process , and a non-physical non-material mental one , the latter that cannot be reduced to the physical .

Is that so difficult to understand , scientist ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You have to try to reconsider your own views regarding what science might be :

I've reconsidered my views about it many times, and continue to do so. If you could provide some coherent argument I'd take that into consideration too, but I'm still waiting to hear it.

[/quote]

No, you do not listen to what your opponents such as myself might say to you , you just prefer to continue listening to your own materialist bizarre one sided music :

Respond to the following then :

How can science try to explain "everything " = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry ,while assuming that the latter is all what there is to reality , thanks to materialism ?

How can science be so deluded and so absurd surreal ...you name it ...as to try to explain reality as a whole ,just via one single side of it : just via the material physical and biological side of reality which science has been taking for granted as the whole reality , thanks to materialism .

Science has thus no choice but to try to deal with both sides of reality , the physical and the mental  alike , if science wanna try to explain the whole pic to us , and hence make us understand the latter .

The only way to do just that , is by rejecting materialism that has been reducing reality to just the material and physical , including the mind .

[cheryl j]

Ironically enough , i have read yesterday a part of this interesting book written by Chris Carter " Science and psychic phenomena : the fal of the house of skeptics " ,concerning the nature of science where Karl Popper was quoted by saying that he was fascinated by what Einstein said in a conference ,concerning his relativity theory ,that it took him years to come up with a solution to Hume's logical paradox concerning induction :
Einstein said something like the following :
No amount of verification or falsification of my theory ,now or in the future , can ever prove it to be true .
Karl Popper then went on talking about Hume's rejection of induction ,and about Bertrand Russell' s  attempts to address the latter while failing to do so .
Karl Popper's solution for Hume's logical rejection of induction was marvellous,induction without which science cannot exist or function  ,and therefore there would be no way to differentiate science from insanity or from pseudo-science  :
Karl Popper proposed that universal induction can only exist logically ,if we would take into consideration that it can only be temporary , in a form of a conjecture , not in a form of absolute truth :
A certain scientific theory ,or scientific knowledge as a whole , can thus only be conjectural ,not definite truths .

I absolutely agree and am happy (stunned, actually) that you realize this as well. As dlorde aptly said earlier, "This is how science works; knowledge is provisional. There is no dogmatic materialist mechanistic orthodox neo-Darwinian  "scientific world view ", just the determination to stay with the best current model until new evidence gives good reason to replace or extend it."

Scientific theories must  be falsifiable and can thus be proven to be false , but can never be proven to be true definitely : scientific theories and paradigms can compete with each other , and the ones which do happen to have more explanatory power take the upperhand, temporarily  ,thinks like that .

Again, I absolutely agree. Couldn't have said it better. And it illustrates the problem with your position. You haven't provided anything with more explanatory power to compete, because you lack evidence to support your ideas.

[dlorde]

Only when science will reject materialism...

How, precisely, do you propose it does that?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The mental is the one that's more fundamental than the physiological ,not the other way around .The mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material

Your statement that the mental is irreducible to the physical is an assertion, not a fact.  It's based on your  impression that they "seem" different or "feel" different to you, and therefore cannot be the same things, or causally related. It would be equally difficult to convince someone who didn't know anything about physics that different forms of energy (radiant energy, chemical energy, electrical energy etc.) were in any way related, or could be converted from one form to another because they "seem" so different. It would be difficult to convince someone with no understanding of photosynthesis how a plant pulls off "the materialist magic trick" of converting radiant energy from the sun to chemical energy in a tomato.

Sorry , lady : only fools ,idiots ,materialists or some other dogmatic or ignorant people would deny the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical ,which also means that  some heritable mental illnesses ,for example ,get passed on to the next generations both physiologically and mentally non-physically , i guess .
The physiological side of mental illnesses is just one single side to them, the mental that's irreducible to the physical is the other side of the same medal , and the more fundamental one at that .
To try to reduce everything , including the mental, to just physics and chemistry is so absurd and surreal false an attempt , that it should not be dignified as to answer it .

Water, ice, and steam all have very experientially different properties but are the same thing. Even a non-scientist accepts this because  as children, we all watched this transformation take place, and verified that no one substituted a cup of water for an ice cube while our back was turned. But if one were never actually able to observe the process, it might be difficult to believe water could be changed in something that looks, feels, and behaves so qualitatively different.

You're just talking about material physical processes here : what has that to do with what i was saying then ?

We don't know yet what even matter is exactly : matter is not just matter either : see quantum physics .

I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's ideas were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets. I doubt even physicists who understand relativity can actually personally "experience" time in any other way than all humans do. It's only the theories, the math, and reproducible, empirical evidence that tells them that their perception of it is wrong, or at least limited.

Logically, mathematically , physically , and even scientifically in the non-materialist sense thus , speaking : physics and chemistry cannot account either for the nature of life , nor that of consciousness .....not to mention that physics and chemistry alone cannot account fully for their origins evolution and emergence , simply because the mental side of life , the non-physical nature of consciousness ,are not reducible to the physical .

No wonder that materialists do speak of living organisms just in terms of machines or computers ,as to make consciousness fit into their false materialist mechanical conception of nature .

If we are just physics and chemistry , we should be behaving like mindless zombies , not  like intelligent machines that are man-made : physics and chemistry alone cannot account for intelligent sentient life .

Otherwise , try to make 'sentient living " machines .

It's just my opinion, which you are free to reject, but I think your reliance on your own experience of  "thoughts" "ideas" "emotions" as being intangible, ethereal, somehow substance-less, is a major reason why you reject  any explanations involving neurons and biochemistry.

Who said i do reject biochemistry , neuro-chemistry or physics and chemistry , biology ...? I just said they are just one single side of life or of reality .
The mental is the other side of the same coin, so to speak : the mental that's irreducible to the physical : we are not just physics and chemistry : we are much more than just that : we are also immaterial minds .

What makes you rather think that the mental can be inherited only physiologically just via genetics or via epigenetics ? How can that happen then ,since the mental is irreducible to the physical ?

Are you aware of this paradox ?

It's not a paradox to me because I don't agree that the mental and physical are two completely separate things. I'm not a dualist.

Who said they are 2 completely separate things then ? they are in fact 2 totally different processes interacting with each other mutually : how ? That remains to be discovered : one cannot try to escape this seemingly impossible issue of mind and body , just by reducing the mind to just biology ,just for ideological materialist purposes science has nothing to do with .

What makes you think that inheritance can only be material , that it can only either be  genetic or epigenetic  ? What makes you exclude any non-physical form of inheritance then ?What makes you exclude the non-physical ,non -genetical ,non-epigenetical form of inheritance ?

 I don't exclude it. Science doesn't exclude it. But you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to show that can be. Just saying "what if" or "how do you know it doesn't happen" isn't enough. It's not enough to make an idea like immaterial inheritance a scientific theory. It's stuck at being just a fanciful idea, without some kind of evidence for it

.

For your info :
Current science does exclude that , simply because science has been assuming that reality is just material or physical , including the mind thus .

Only when science will reject materialism ,only then, science will be able to extend its realm as to include the mental that's irreducible to the physical : the mental that's just the other side of the same pic .

Science will thus have to stop its absurd surreal false ...attempts to try to explain "everything " = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry = just via one single side of the whole pic ,it has been taking for the whole pic or for the whole real thing , thanks to materialism thus ,once again .

Is that so hard to understand ?

The problem is thus not the immaterial side of reality , not our immaterial or mental side without which there would be even no science , the problem is materialism in science which reduces everything to just the material or to the physical biological ,including the mind .

Science has thus no choice but to try to deal with those both sides of reality or of the whole pic , if science wanna deserve fully to be called science , if science wanna try to explain the whole pic ,and hence make us understand the latter .

What makes you think that science proper will not be able to discover those non-physical forms of inheritance , after rejecting materialism thus ?[/i]

Who knows, maybe it will. Science doesn't exclude the possibility. There's just no evidence for it so far. I don't understand your need to reject everything that has been explained so far by chemistry and physics, because of that possibility. A discovery like that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every other scientific finding, any more than epigenetics destroyed Natural Selection - it simply added more knowledge and better understanding.

See above : science does exclude the immaterial side of reality ,does thus exclude the immaterial side of life as a whole , and hence does exclude our mental immaterial side as well , the mental or immaterial side of reality that has been reduced to the material physical or to the biological ,thanks to materialism .

It's not thus that there is no evidence for the immaterial side of reality , it's just that materialism , per definition, does exclude the immaterial side of reality , materialism has been reducing that to the material physical or to the biological : science has nothing to do with that false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " : how can't you understand just this simple fact ?

And i am not rejecting physics and chemistry , i just reject that "everything " = nothing , can be explained only in terms of physics and chemistry : see the difference ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Ironically enough , i have read yesterday a part of this interesting book written by Chris Carter " Science and psychic phenomena : the fal of the house of skeptics " ,concerning the nature of science where Karl Popper was quoted by saying that he was fascinated by what Einstein said in a conference ,concerning his relativity theory ,that it took him years to come up with a solution to Hume's logical paradox concerning induction :
Einstein said something like the following :
No amount of verification or falsification of my theory ,now or in the future , can ever prove it to be true .
Karl Popper then went on talking about Hume's rejection of induction ,and about Bertrand Russell' s  attempts to address the latter while failing to do so .
Karl Popper's solution for Hume's logical rejection of induction was marvellous,induction without which science cannot exist or function  ,and therefore there would be no way to differentiate science from insanity or from pseudo-science  :
Karl Popper proposed that universal induction can only exist logically ,if we would take into consideration that it can only be temporary , in a form of a conjecture , not in a form of absolute truth :
A certain scientific theory ,or scientific knowledge as a whole , can thus only be conjectural ,not definite truths .

I absolutely agree and am happy (stunned, actually) that you realize this as well. As dlorde aptly said earlier, "This is how science works; knowledge is provisional. There is no dogmatic materialist mechanistic orthodox neo-Darwinian  "scientific world view ", just the determination to stay with the best current model until new evidence gives good reason to replace or extend it."

Well, lady , i cannot but say that you did not read me well on that :
I also said that materialism or the materialist meta-paradigm in science ( The materialist mainstream "scientific world view" thus ) has been ossifying itself as to become extremely orthodox  dogmatic irrational by considering itself to be the absolute truth , and hence by making itself unfalsifiable and thus unscientific : materialism was in fact already unscientific from day 1 , it just hardened itself into an increasingly untenable unfalsifiable dogma  "truth " , while scientific knowledge or theories  , scientific meta and paradigms can never be taken for granted as being true , never , ever : no amount of present or future falsifications attempts can prove them to be true , never , ever , simply because it would have to take only one succesfull falsification in the far future , to brand them as being false , while other alternate  competing  theories  with more explanatory power might replace them  temporarily in their turn and then the same process would go for the latter also and so on , as Einstein said , and as Hume has demonstrated in relation to induction in science , even poor Russell could not solve , and only Popper could  so brilliantly indeed .

Any scientific theories, any scientific knowledge , any scientific meta or paradigm ,are per -definition , temporary and cannot thus be taken for granted as absolute truths ,as to become unfalsifiable , as materialism has been doing , by assuming or rather by dogmatically and absolutely believing that reality is just material or physical , as the current "scientific world view " has been doing for so long now , turning themselves into unfalsifiable dogmas and absolute truths= unscientific  , by excluding any existence of the immaterial side of reality as a matter of materialist absolute "truth " or as a materialist unfalsifiable dogma belief .

Scientific theories must  be falsifiable and can thus be proven to be false , but can never be proven to be true definitely : scientific theories and paradigms can compete with each other , and the ones which do happen to have more explanatory power take the upperhand, temporarily  ,thinks like that .

Again, I absolutely agree. Couldn't have said it better. And it illustrates the problem with your position. You haven't provided anything with more explanatory power to compete, because you lack evidence to support your ideas.

Should we keep  on  considering materialism as being a "valid " theory of nature  , simply because we cannot yet find more clear and valid theories ,with more explanatory power ?   what kindda "scientific reasoning " is that ?
The fact that the materialist meta-paradigm in science has been turning itself into an unfalsifiable dogma "absolute truth" by rejecting , per definition, a priori and per se any alternate competing theory of nature  out there , is reason enough to reject materialism , while trying to give form to alternatives to materialism, as Sheldrake and others ,for example , have been doing so far at least , by triggering this new scientific revolution .

P.S.: If you want to : i can let Karl Popper speak on the subject via quoting some of his words on the subject from his "Conjectures and refutations : The growth of scientific knowledge " .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Only when science will reject materialism...

How, precisely, do you propose it does that?

See right here above  what i said to our Cheryl on the subject .
Science will have to face ,and has no choice but to address the fact that reality is not just material or physical, and hence to continue trying  to explain "everything " = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry is an unscientific and a false absurd surreal ...attempt to make ,such an unscientific attempt should be abandoned .
Sheldrake and others have already been starting this scientific revolution so far their own more or less clumsy ways : that's how scientific revolutions do start ,clumsily : they are first ridiculed , then violently opposed , and then they become self-evident afterwards : that's what i assume that' ll be happening = none or nothing  can stop such a scientific process from taking place,as the very young history of science itself has been showing , no matter how powerful  ,deceptive ,oppressive ,bullying,  inquisitory and persuasive  any temporary  majority or  scientific priesthood's consensus  might ever be ,or turn out to be  .

[RD]

... only fools ,idiots ,materialists or some other dogmatic or ignorant people would deny the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical

You've use that everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-an-idiot line before,
repeatedly ... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22only+fools+idiots+%22++site%3Athenakedscientists.com

it demonstrates you have no evidence to support your position, ( and how tediously repetitious you are).

[cheryl j]

Sorry , lady : only fools ,idiots ,materialists or some other dogmatic or ignorant people would deny the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical ,which also means that  some heritable mental illnesses ,for example ,get passed on to the next generations both physiologically and mentally non-physically , i guess .

Well, that kind of wrecks your concept of free will, if your mother's mental illness is immaterially forced on to your consciousness.

To try to reduce everything , including the mental, to just physics and chemistry is so absurd and surreal false an attempt , that it should not be dignified as to answer it .

lol.

Water, ice, and steam all have very experientially different properties but are the same thing. Even a non-scientist accepts this because  as children, we all watched this transformation take place, and verified that no one substituted a cup of water for an ice cube while our back was turned. But if one were never actually able to observe the process, it might be difficult to believe water could be changed in something that looks, feels, and behaves so qualitatively different.

You're just talking about material physical processes here : what has that to do with what i was saying then ?

My point was that you give way too much credence to  superficial qualities when you compare two things.  You keep insisting that the mental processes have no physical basis because the two things are just "totally different", but can’t explain how or why. They just are, you say over and over, and only “idiots” would think otherwise.

On the other hand, I’m not surprised that you think the way you do. When one relies on immaterial explanations, what choice is there? There is nothing but  vague superficial, impressionist descriptions to use  for comparison, because there are no immaterial mechanisms or processes to even consider.

Who said i do reject biochemistry , neuro-chemistry or physics and chemistry , biology ...?

You do, Don, every single time any explanation involving chemistry or physics comes up, even in examples that don't involve consciousness.

Who said they are 2 completely separate things then ? they are in fact 2 totally different processes interacting with each other mutually : how ? That remains to be discovered :

Gosh that sounds a bit "messianic/promissory."

[dlorde]

It's called 'magical thinking'. Basically wish fulfillment.

[Ethos_]

No, you do not listen to what your opponents such as myself might say to you , you just prefer to continue listening to your own materialist bizarre one sided music :

So, we're being described as opponents are we? As an opponent, are we expected to surrender, or to listen to music that is severely out of key? The band your playing in will never make the top ten my friend!