Merkabah

[sprinkles]

Moreover, for those who propose that quantum physics is somehow metaphysical:

Information is a property. Take away the material medium and you have no apparatus - no experiment. Take away the properties of the medium - the information, and you have no results to the experiment, because the apparatus requires material results to trigger it.

Detectors are designed to detect specific things only, and quantum experiments rely on these for results. Detectors must interact physically in order to extract relevant information from the medium - if they don't work this way then you either end up with random and false results because it's just detecting any old undefined thing, or no results at all.

 

[LucyJr]

This is the argumentative equivalent of Head Shot!

Yes. Here is a good quote that I like:

"Philosophy is applied science to truth".

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Do you think ideas are also physical properties and material?

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Do you think ideas are also physical properties and material?

Yes, I do.

Well, they are more properties of material. Like waves in water. Waves aren't really a thing alone, they're like information - a state of the medium. A water wave is simply the arrangement of water taking place in spacetime - the wave itself is not a thing without the water.

 

[CogentPursuit]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Do you think ideas are also physical properties and material?

Ideas don't exist. They are simply an abstract concept created by the consciousness.

So let us move on to the source. Is consciousness metaphysical? Unprovable? It is possible that science cannot understand the complexities of the mind and it some day can be proven and it is possible that it truly is a tunnel into the soul on another plane of existence and there is nothing in this reality that will ever prove anything one way or another. We do know that consciousness exists unless one would be arrogant enough to deny their own existence. So yet again we are left to wonder and never know.

At first I thought, "I should refrain from using the word arrogance as a believer of this sort may take offense." Then I realized that the person is not a consciousness and cannot take offense.

 

[LucyJr]

Yes, I do.

Well, they are more properties of material. Like waves in water. Waves aren't really a thing alone, they're like information - a state of the medium. A water wave is simply the arrangement of water taking place in spacetime - the wave itself is not a thing without the water.

If they are properties of the material, it means they are material.
So for example, the number 4 should be something material, something that can be 'stored'. On this view, ideas are stored physically, They can be hold and manipulated, and even destroyed or damaged.
For example, justice is a material property.
That's materialism. It states that everything that exist is material, even thoughts and ideas.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

Also a lot of things lived and died in order for me to have this idea and send it to you. I can't extricate it from the fact that it took millenia to create it. Without the universe energy which leads up to it, it would have never existed, and without many power plants and fossil fuels and infrastructures and mining operations it would not be appearing on the screen you have now, and without all your ancestors and education and the earth and light and air and the food you've eaten in your entire life up to now and whatever you did to obtain your device you're using, you wouldn't be reading it.

Ideas exist in and are propagated by one holistic universe. We can't separate them into discrete entities like so many are wont to do.

 

[sprinkles]

If they are properties of the material, it means they are material.
So for example, the number 4 should be something material, something that can be 'stored'. On this view, ideas are stored physically, They can be hold and manipulated, and even destroyed or damaged.
For example, justice is a material property.
That's materialism. It states that everything that exist is material, even thoughts and ideas.

Yes they can be held, destroyed, and damaged, and made over again. A lot of times due to the fact that the universe itself can hold 'ideas', when ideas are made again to arise in consciousness, they might appear the same way they had before because the universe has ongoing continuity. e.g. with numbers.

 

[say what]

There's no way the noble gases would have been discovered through just natural observation and experiments based on normal perceptions, They had to go out of their way and do something wild - something that doesn't typically happen on earth, and turn air into a liquid.

I wonder if this same discovery would be considered 'reliable' and 'valid' by today's standards. On top of that, I think a lot of the notable discoveries made throughout history were during times that allowed for experimentation and exploration of new ideas. I imagine if some of these same scientists/theorists/explorers/etc. were around today, they wouldn't be able to get the funding for these experiments (because they are not valued as scientifically fundable) and they would never have happened.

I think there has been a shift from the extreme empiricism that we saw in previous generations, and there is more value being placed on 'softer' sciences; but the flexibility of working on things that are outside of popular science is much narrower. Funded science today is so controlled, and they rarely fund theoretical work that is considered 'out there'.

If this was a game of Civilization, we would totally be up there on production and population; but we're losing -1000+ science and -1000+ culture each turn. [totally nerded out]

 

[sprinkles]

I wonder if this same discovery would be considered 'reliable' and 'valid' by today's standards. On top of that, I think a lot of the notable discoveries made throughout history were during times that allowed for experimentation and exploration of new ideas. I imagine if some of these same scientists/theorists/explorers/etc. were around today, they wouldn't be able to get the funding for these experiments (because they are not valued as scientifically fundable) and they would never have happened.

I think there has been a shift from the extreme empiricism that we saw in previous generations, and there is more value being placed on 'softer' sciences; but the flexibility of working on things that are outside of popular science is much narrower. Funded science today is so controlled, and they rarely fund theoretical work that is considered 'out there'.

If this was a game of Civilization, we would totally be up there on production and population; but we're losing -1000+ science and -1000+ culture each turn. [totally nerded out]

Yes a lot of modern science is currently bent on hubris and solidifying what we think we already know, which is probably why the material/supernatural dichotomy still exists.

There's absurd propensity for truth and knowing and wrapping up the human condition into it when it really should be about messing with phenomena to see what can happen and what does happen, sans the fucking existential quagmire.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]

I call BS. Materialism doesn't have anything to say about religion or the supernatural. It just says that anything which is, is material.

There could be a God and the entire Bible could be true for all we know, and it could still work even if you define it all as material. God would be more of a god if God had a material reason to be. "God can't be physical!" Well why the fuck not??

What's so damn important about supernatural? What kind of mindfuck reasons do we need to keep maintaining the idea of it?

Using materialism to say that 'there is no supernatural and therefore no God' is full on retarded. It just says that supernatural is not a thing.

The view of materialism is simply that anything which interacts with material with given laws should also be material. To take away material you must also take away any definitions or workings because you're left with nothing to define or cause things to be. Without material a thing can't be itself - even abstractions must be conveyed through states of material.

I took it a different way. I thought they were saying that since materialism is unproven (which, it never will be, because you can only ever disprove a theory and never prove it), that materialist must maintain a sense that there could be non-material items (that seems like the wrong choice of words when talking about non-materials!)...and non-material items may be things like the soul or God. The same goes for religious individuals.

I could have taken that completely wrong. My mind is in a different space, and I keep going back to something someone once said in a conversation about religion and science - they were talking about if religion was based on science, and they said "what would happen if you science failed you? What would you be left with?" I think that's an interesting question to ask within the context of empiricism. Science is lucky in that if something fails, it doesn't disprove it doesn't exist, it just doesn't prove it.

 

[sprinkles]

I took it a different way. I thought they were saying that since materialism is unproven (which, it never will be, because you can only ever disprove a theory and never prove it), that materialist must maintain a sense that there could be non-material items (that seems like the wrong choice of words when talking about non-materials!)...and non-material items may be things like the soul or God. The same goes for religious individuals.

I could have taken that completely wrong. My mind is in a different space, and I keep going back to something someone once said in a conversation about religion and science - they were talking about if religion was based on science, and they said "what would happen if you science failed you? What would you be left with?" I think that's an interesting question to ask within the context of empiricism. Science is lucky in that if something fails, it doesn't disprove it doesn't exist, it just doesn't prove it.

Well my take on it is this: we can't verify it either way, it's moot, but things being material probably makes more sense.

Or put another way: we haven't identified all the ways a thing can be material so we cannot verify that anything isn't. Arguing about it comes down to selfish semantic preference that really has nothing to do with anything. If something actually is, then why on this green earth does it even matter?

I propose materialism because it seems more likely in scientific endeavors. However I also include energy and quantum states in 'material'. Anybody who thinks these aren't material just needs to talk to the sun - or the atomic bomb.

 

[say what]

Well my take on it is this: we can't verify it either way, it's moot, but things being material probably makes more sense.

Or put another way: we haven't identified all the ways a thing can be material so we cannot verify that anything isn't. Arguing about it comes down to selfish semantic preference that really has nothing to do with anything. If something actually is, then why on this green earth does it even matter?

I propose materialism because it seems more likely in scientific endeavors. However I also include energy and quantum states in 'material'. Anybody who thinks these aren't material just needs to talk to the sun - or the atomic bomb.

That's my point- you can't disprove either way, of it's existence or non-existence. Science saying "it just makes more sense" (even if that's your own personal opinion) is the same thing as Christianity, Judaism and Islam saying that materialism is wrong as it denies the existence of God and our human souls- to them, materialism doesn't make sense.

I don't know much about materialism, but how is material defined? Can it be immeasurable (that is, we have yet to be able to measure it?)

 

[sprinkles]

That's my point- you can't disprove either way, of it's existence or non-existence. Science saying "it just makes more sense" (even if that's your own personal opinion) is the same thing as Christianity, Judaism and Islam saying that materialism is wrong as it denies the existence of God and our human souls- to them, materialism doesn't make sense.

I don't know much about materialism, but how is material defined? Can it be immeasurable (that is, we have yet to be able to measure it?)

There's at least two kinds of materialism.

One proposes that everything is somehow matter, that it's made of 'stuff', inert substance, and all things arise from interactions of this stuff.

There's also a slightly different version, called physicalism, where everything is supervened or dependent on physicality. Physicalism came after the old version of materialism.

I find the first version to be problematic because it leads to infinite regression, and causes confusion with fundamental properties where a thing is not necessarily 'made of' anything except itself.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also I don't think subscribing to something because you think it makes more sense is at all problematic. A lot of times that's all you can get to do if you're actually honest about what you really know.

In fact that's all most people ever do. If you ever read it in a book somewhere and didn't experiment it yourself, then that's what you're doing - making sense of it. Who cares about the scientists who wrote it, if you're reading it without self discovery, then you're responsible for that - you're very much taking what makes sense to you.

 

[say what]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also I don't think subscribing to something because you think it makes more sense is at all problematic. A lot of times that's all you can get to do if you're actually honest about what you really know.

In fact that's all most people ever do. If you ever read it in a book somewhere and didn't experiment it yourself, then that's what you're doing - making sense of it. Who cares about the scientists who wrote it, if you're reading it without self discovery, then you're responsible for that - you're very much taking what makes sense to you.

Oh! I completely agree with you! 100%

I'm not saying you said this, but my issue with science is that they haven't disproved a theory, such as materialism (just an example!), and because they haven't disproved it, they still suggest that it's a more logical or (in some ways) more 'scientifically' relevant/valid than theological ideas- but in essence, the both take "faith" to believe, as neither have been proven. I might not be making myself clear- I think we're saying the same thing, it's just I get peeved with science because it's technically believing in something which hasn't be disproved - but not proven.

Scientists always want "proof" that God or more paranormal/pseudo-science exists. But much of science doesn't have tangible 'proof'.

And then that takes you back to what is "proof"? Who determines if it's valid?

 

[sprinkles]

Oh! I completely agree with you! 100%

I'm not saying you said this, but my issue with science is that they haven't disproved a theory, such as materialism (just an example!), and because they haven't disproved it, they still suggest that it's a more logical or (in some ways) more 'scientifically' relevant/valid than theological ideas- but in essence, the both take "faith" to believe, as neither have been proven. I might not be making myself clear- I think we're saying the same thing, it's just I get peeved with science because it's technically believing in something which hasn't be disproved - but not proven.

Scientists always want "proof" that God or more paranormal/pseudo-science exists. But much of science doesn't have tangible 'proof'.

And then that takes you back to what is "proof"? Who determines if it's valid?

Validity and proof are overrated. That doesn't mean they aren't useful - just more importance has been placed on them than they should have.

I think it only takes an imaginative mind to realize that belief is a tool and proof is only a stop on going in wild circles. Like when they captured the neutrino and discovered it by its release of gamma rays, who's to say that the devil didn't just come and trick their instruments?

What's more believable (without any actual proof on your end) - that they discovered neutrinos in a nuclear reactor, or that Satan came along and lied to them?

 

[say what]

What's more believable (without any actual proof on your end) - that they discovered neutrinos in a nuclear reactor, or that Satan came along and lied to them?

It depends on the day!

 

[sprinkles]

It depends on the day!

What if we expand it with a lot more alternatives so that for every day of the week there's a different cause of deception proposed?

What if we were to even expand the alternatives infinitely so that even unprecedented ones can be included, only one example of which is Blarthine the Eggplant Spirit worked some mischief because the scientists didn't make an eggplant offering for their lunch?

What's to keep an imaginative mind from totally flying off the handle and inventing stuff that was seen in no book ever? Or if we have to keep it within established precedent, why do we need to do that? How do we know that the authors of precedent weren't flying off their handles?

If it depends on the day then you could have a lot of days depending on different interpretations. You're gonna have a really full schedule.

 

[say what]

What if we expand it with a lot more alternatives so that for every day of the week there's a different cause of deception proposed?

What if we were to even expand the alternatives infinitely so that even unprecedented ones can be included, only one example of which is Blarthine the Eggplant Spirit worked some mischief because the scientists didn't make an eggplant offering for their lunch?

What's to keep an imaginative mind from totally flying off the handle and inventing stuff that was seen in no book ever? Or if we have to keep it within established precedent, why do we need to do that? How do we know that the authors of precedent weren't flying off their handles?

If it depends on the day then you could have a lot of days depending on different interpretations. You're gonna have a really full schedule.

That's the beauty of believing in multiple truths! I'm not saying I enjoy the indecision in my ideas and faith, but I do like the ability to contemplate a range of possibilities!

Plus...we all know that it's all because of the flying spaghetti monster. That's the reality of everything.