Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ "To prove consciousness originated from matter, you need to tell me why a primitive ant with 5 neurons has consciousness but a super computer not - they both are made out of matter"
Why not just assume consciousness is matter. That seems to be the current trend in physics.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-physicists-are-saying-cons...
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousnes...
It's an interesting claim...
"""Why not just assume consciousness is matter. That seems to be the current trend in physics."""
Such brilliance in thinking rivals with postmodernism :))) So I will answer with a postmodern answer: why not just assume matter is consciousness ?
And to answer the question:
1) Because such unphantomable stupidity should only be confined to postmodernism. This kind of thinking should not spread to other areas. Arguments that can be refuted by a 10 year old should stay well confined inside the religion of postmodernism and used only inside church classes whose names end with "studies". Chancing the deffinition of terms to suit your views is also a tactic that should not spread out the sphere of postmodernism.
2) On a more serious note, because consciousnes and matter are different elements with different properties and a relationship between them that clearly contradicts both of the funky ideas stated above.
3) No wise person would ever say that software is the same as hardware. That's why they have different names to begin with. Making such claims about consciousness and matter is even more ridiculous.
@dxm_dxm can you show that your perspective has any practical significance?
Understanding how the world works will always have practical significance. Should we go back to the earth being flat and the center of the universe ? The goal of science is not to defend the materialist philosophy, but to find out the truth through following the chain of cause and effect. The more you know about how things work and the more correct you are, the more efficient your decisions will be. Finding out what's true and what's false always has practical significance.
It seems, tho, dxm, that despite saying that finding out what’s true and what’s false has practical significance, you’ve made your mind up about things for which there is not evidence. Do you think that is a better route than suspending belief in what is unknown until such time as it can be demonstrated?
"suspending belief in what is unknown until such time as it can be demonstrated?"
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The goal of science is not to defend the materialist philosophy, but to find out the truth through following the chain of cause and effect. "
Nothing on the news about science evidencing anything outside of the material physical universe. In fact the dictionary defines science as the systematic study of the *NATURAL PHYSICAL world. This seems to be problematic for your claims that your religious beliefs are aligned with science.
@Sheldon
1) You already ran away, as predicted ? You adressed none of the 3 points made in my previous post. I expected to find higher debating ethics over here, since this is a debating hall.
2) When did buddhism say there is some higher force or something outside of the material universe ? Matter is one of the 5 aggregates and consciousness can not exist without it. Check Patticcasamuppada (Dependent origination). It's important for you to understand the Buddhist view otherwise you will continue to fight with strawman solipsism.
“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance
as condition, volitional formations [come to be];1 with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness
as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition,
the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition,
contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition,
craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging
as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with
birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent
origination.
[...]
“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does
name-and-form come to be? By what is name-and-form conditioned?’
Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took
place in me a breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is consciousness,
name-and-form comes to be; name-and-form has
consciousness as its condition.’
[...]
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for name-and-form?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.'
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for consciousness?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'
Note that form means physical matter while name means the way it is perceived, like in that website example that I gave. This web page we are seeing is actually a bunch of 20 files of written code. It only looks like that if the browser interprets this information in a way that delivers this final result. Humans function the same way. There is no light, no color, etc. out there. Radiation waves are transformed into looking like that by the browser. Thus, this is called "name", while "form" means the physical matter itself. They can never be found separate from one another, that's why they are called name&form, because you will always find them together. Consciousness depends on name and form, while name and form depend on consciousness. Though, as a distant cause, consciousness has volitional formations as a cause for existing.
2500 years old, still perfectly in line with quantum physics and unrefuted by any scientific discovery. The way human organisms and the world technically work is a timeless information. Same as the law of gravity will work the same way no matter in what century you are. As Buddha said "weather there is a buddha to discover the dhamma (dhamma=the way things work) and proclaim it, or weather there is no buddha to discover it, it will still work the same".
You have placed your confidence in things (...if an immaterial thing can truly be called a thing...) that cannot be proven to be true or false: things that can thus never be descriptive, can never be explanations, can never be of practical significance.
I haven't commented thus far as consciousness isn't something I've overly studied but it is of interest, so why not.
So I'm assuming you are referring to the philosophy of materialism which is defined as, "The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications"
Or, "The theory or belief that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency"
So you ask, can one believe in an outlook such as materialism without 1) a theory and/or 2) evidence to support it.
I would say yes of course, as it is possible to make a logical argument to make it rational to believe anything.
Does that make it a fact? No.
But one could offer the preponderance of evidence, such as almost all things other than the abstract phenomena are of the material.
So being a good Bayesian you easily argue that the overwhelming evidence supports or at least makes it likely to be accurate, and on the right path.
Personally I would follow the relevant fields of neuroscience and the like to discover more.
Personally I think naturalism offers the best philosophical view of the universe.
"""So being a good Bayesian you easily argue that the overwhelming evidence supports or at least makes it likely to be accurate, and on the right path."""
I understand your point, but this part of the message is problematic if used in extremist philosophies, such as materialism or solipsism. Both these philosophies do posses a piece of truth on which they are built. They then take that piece of truth and say "everything comes from this". They refuse to acknowledge information about the world that contradicts this extreme conclusions. But if they were to follow that advice, they would have all the right to say that "we do have our piece of truth, nobody can deny it, therefore we have more truth than we have falsehoods so we're good to go".
But honest pursuit of the truth does not work like that and neither is that an efficient way to search for the truth. One searching for the truth should take into consideration all facts that he has at his disposal and be sure that whatever he believes in is not refuted. Believing in refuted ideas is useless, no matter how intuitive they might seem due to presence of favorable evidence. The flat-earth idea does have it's arguments and seems intuitive, yet it's still false. When refuted, turn agnostic and continue the search. Only like that can one pass the jungle of views.
I should have elaborated further on the Baysien probability point... I do not know the materialist outlook so I cannot confirm what appears to be correct or false... all I'm saying is if one believes in this philosophy and the preponderance of evidence supports it, whilst the refutations are only "we don't know yet!" Then a good baysien could be content with that alone.
Therefore they are justified in their beliefs.
The good thing is materialism is a scientific philosophy of sorts, and the scientific method is designed to weed out what is right and wrong in regards to claims, then proceed to the next stage... at least this philosophy is honest.
Flat Earth has no valid arguments and is merely the ramblings of the incredulous.
Only the gullible or irretrievably stupid continue to debate the subject.
What you fail to glean is that the claims you make generally have nothing at all to do with the sources you are citing. You cite the source and then launch yourself into places that no man has gone before. The conclusions you draw from that which you ofttimes cite are fallacious and erroneous. You interpret science like a Christian interprets the bible; seeing only what you want to see and cramming into your own special little framework of existence.
Have you read many science papers? If so, then you should know introductions set the theoretical groundwork before launching into places no man has gone before. I do so here with arguments, they do so there with experiments. Yet in both cases, citations are the foundation, not the conclusion.
Unfortunately, you never engage in discussions, so we'll never know what you found that was erroneous.
And when the foundations have nothing at all to do with the conclusions? ----- It is the writer's responsibility to write clearly. It is never the reader's responsibility to "correctly" interpret the writer. Your magical thinking is rarely connected to the topic you are using as support. Just Saying. Once you leave earth and enter Na-na land, it's time to simply stop reading.
That's why I am always praising the patients of those guys that hang in there with you. I don't know how they do it.
I make a statement such as what happens to an organism with an underdeveloped visual cortex, I then give you any references of that, and finally I ask the forum a question about its evolutionary path, given that information. It's that simple.
Don't hide behind a lack of patience. Demonstrate what you're accusing me of. I think you'll find it's you that often enters na na land.
Have your claims been peer reviewed, and scientifically validated?
No they haven't, as was pointed out when you first posted your creationist verbiage. very time you do this John, we don't think ooh isn't John clever, the scientific world must be wrong, we just give a collective groan. This is how your claims look to us...
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-paleontologists-brought-laughter-creation-...
And no amount of posturing because you're a student who isn't even studying evolution specifically, will change the collective groans, ad staggering when you post this nonsense.
How old do you believe the universe and the earth are John?
Is there any reason you are afraid to answer these questions?
Again, notice the higher standards that I'm held to. I would never ask you if you've been peer-reviwed, because unlike me, you're not in a position to publish.
Neither are you.
rmfr
John, you wrote to Sheldon, “because unlike me, you're not in a position to publish.”
How do you come to know this?
By his own admission, obviously.
I don’t remember him saying that.
The only people I can think of who are not in a position to publish, are people who are unable to write.
The only people who are not in a position to publish are those that don't have anything to contribute to the field. Sheldon watches the news instead of reading science papers, so he doesn't know where the current knowledge gaps are. Sheldon says he doesn't have a science education, so he hasn't learned any research methods or tools with which to conduct his own experiments.
What would he write about and who would publish him? He barely has anything to contribute to this forum alone, beyond copy/pasting the same statements on every post I make.
I know where all the gaps are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rmfr
He he he he,,,, and that one I can leave to public opinion. Sorry Breezy, well just have to agree to disagree. You will not find me there with Sheldon, Old Man Shouts, Sapporo or Nyarlathotep who all have amazing patients with you as they repeat themselves over and over and over for hundreds of posts. This is good news for you. I will generally state an opinion and be gone. You don't really have to deal with me, and honestly, I don;t have the patience to deal with you. Perhaps over a beer some day.
Very well.
Sorry I am late to this party, but here I am, just as acidic and caustic and acerbic and barbed and stinging as ever… Let's see how bad (sarcasm) I can be. Hey, Tin-Man! Watch the roots. I was trying to stomp there…
First off, English ain't your first language is it? When writing an interrogative statement, there is NO space in front of the question mark. I have also traveled across this world enough to know that there is no other language on Earth where you put a space in front of the question mark. Only a retard would do so. Are you a stupid? Or just ignorant? Ignorant meaning the same as agnostic: "without knowledge." If you ain't going to get it right, then don't write it.
And the definitions of "materialism."
1) a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
• Also called "economic materialism."
2) the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
• Also called "physical materialism."
So the definition you are going with is the second definition. Let's get to your OP…
First of all, I wished you uneducated people would go back to school and learn the TRUE definitions of hypothesis, theory, and law/principle when you are speaking from a scientific POV (Point Of View). Nothing pisses me off more than having ignorant persons that are attempting (and failing miserably) to discuss such things when they do not have the slightest clue about what they are trying to discuss.
To your question: NO! Materialism is a hypothesis. It has never been accepted in the scientific circles, excepting those dumb ass retarded Religious Absolutists who pretend to be scientists, and are a VERY poor excuse for a pseudoscientist like you. And, 7734 NO! I do not believe in either definition of "materialsim." However, there are a LOT of Religious Absolutists who DEFINITELY believe in the "economic materialism." Although, atheists can be said to be "economic materialists," we truly are not. If we possess a large collection of anything, especially the atheists that go into a scientific field, those collections tend to be books and learning materials. I just recently updated my library database. I have over 1100 books that are classified as "educational" and over 400 DVDs (Digital Video Discs) and BRDs (Blue-Ray Discs) that are classified as "educational." The other category of "entertainment" contains less than a third of the "educational" categories.
Most atheists tend to collect such materials. They are not into the TRUE "economic materialism" as the Religious Absolutists. How many atheists do you see living in huge ginormous mansions? Most atheists tend to live within a certain "comfort zone." If it were just me, I would have a two bedroom… what are they called… Tiny Houses? The only reason I would have the second bedroom is for my library. My house, if I were by myself AND had no library, would be only a bedroom, bathroom, living room, and a kitchen & dinette area. That is all. About 55 to 75 square meters (600 to 800 square feet). I know you are only asking about the "physical materialism" hypothesis. However, even the economic materialism still falls under the physical materialism if you think about it.
And now I am really pissed off because I have lost all patience with ignorant idiots. You have just shown how big of a ignorant idiot you are. You are trying to discuss a theory from a scientific POV and you do not even know the definition of theory. You ignorant retard. If you are going to ask about something, lt least try to do some research.
The definitions you are showing your ignorance in is actually:
A scientific hypothesis is “an idea about the observation of a phenomenon.” To be a true hypothesis, it must be stated in such a way that said idea can be tested using scientific methods. If it cannot be tested, then it is not a hypothesis. Rather it tends to become a presupposition without veracity, a preposterous imagination. In science, hypothesis is defined as “a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.”
Once the hypothesis has been tested many, many numerous times by numerous scientists and has been proven to be correct, only then can it become a scientific theory. Perhaps another way of defining scientific theory is to say it is a proven hypothesis. However, that is ultimately incorrect, operative word = “perhaps.” In science, theory is defined as “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.” Example, Einstein’s theories of relativity, the theory of gravity.
You uneducated people, especially Religious Absolutists, tend to define theory as “a mere assumption or guess.” In actuality, that is the definition for fantasy (preposterous presupposition). However, in science that “mere assumption or guess” MUST still be testable. Otherwise, it is a preposterous presupposed fantasy.
In science, a Law or Principle is basically an explanation of how something works. It does not explain why it works the way it does within nature. That is what a scientific theory does. Basically, a Law or Principle is a formula, or set of formulae, which defines how the "something" works. Remember, theory defines why "something" works. One Principle that does not have formulae (as far as I know) is the Principle of Uniformitarianism. Simply stated, this Principle states that “the natural forces and processes we see working on the Earth today are the same exact forces that have always worked on the Earth in the past.” At least that is the definition from a geologist’s viewpoint (and mine). I am sure there are other slightly different definitions in other scientific disciplines.
Thus, I just wish you uneducated people would go back to school, and you probably should start over at First Grade, and actually learn something the second time around.
You state, "claim that consciousness comes from matter" Actually it does. What are the neurons in your brain composed of? What is neurotransmitters composed of? Matter. Thus, consciousness is from matter.
You mean hypothesis! Get it correct Homo inscius. And there is evidence. See directly above.
As said, it is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is a FACT (Formulated Accurately Codified Truth). Consciousness is derived from having a large complex brain. And the brain is composed of matter.
Actually Atheism means "not believing in the existence of ANY god." One can be an atheist without believing in materialism. About the only thing you have gotten correct.
My opinion about materialism is, get the hell out of here with that Religious Absolutist bullshit. No I cannot believe in anything put forth by Religious Absolutists.
I do not believe in anything based on intuition. That is not how intuition works. At least not for me. Intuition for me is the "gut feeling" or that "danger sense" you can have at certain times. As far as I am concerned, intuition has no place in any beliefs system. For me, any belief I have is backed by irrefutable objective hard empirical evidence. And if it cannot be verified or falsified, it ain't evidence.
rmfr
What effect does reading a lot have on an organism if it is also corroborated with low IQ, high narcissism and zero intellectual honesty, as is the case over here ? In general, this combination creates crack pots.
Should not talk about yourself publicly like that ^^^^^
rmfr
Pages