Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
No need for any cult, thanks. What I refer to by 'immaterial world of pure content' is the fact that the ultimate reference in thinking is in a realm that some call Platonic, for example -- which is the same as what I say, just in other words. People like Paul Finsler or Kurt Goedel (well known to you, I suppose) were admitted Platonists, i.e. they expressed the above, and even more 'modern' ones like Douglas R. Hofstadter (author of eg. Goedel, Escher, Bach), who are in no way inclined to any immaterialism, at the end admit that logical paradoxes and contradictions would be insoluble if one could not refer to pure laws, whose locus is there. -- Is this helpful for you, or would you like some more details?

I don't need you to quote names at me, as appeals to authority hold little weight with me. There is no proof of 'pure laws' as anything but a convenient shorthand, you know?There can be practical, but they exist with certainty only in our minds.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Also, the reason I brought it up in the first place was because I had read in one of Royce's earlier posts that he used to listen to Roy Masters, and I was just trying to jog his memory a little, Okay?

My wife and I found and listened to Roy Masters in the mid to late 70's so it's been a while. There was much of what he said that I couldn't and didn't buy then or now. He did however teach a way of meditation that did bring me convincing results.

I have always felt and he always taught that once we had learned all that we could or needed to from him or anybody else it was time to move on. That is one reason he discouraged hangers on. He was at that time dead set against forming any kind of cult. If a cult did arise it was against his wishes and advice.

I have used a lot of what he taught and what I discovered with him and since in my posts here. Yes, I would agree that he was paranoid, possible even a paranoid schizophrenic but his teaching then helped both me and my wife. We were Christians then before RM and I have studied Zen and Taoism since the early 60's. I have found through further study that much of what I remember of Roy's teaching were and are accepted wisdom, knowledge and truth in many religions and Christian denominations. He was not all mad. He probably still isn't but to someonelike you Zero. he would be a raving maniac.

To repeat something I have said before: "Sanity appears insane to the insane." I think that I could probably paraphrase that to include reality don't you think?

Back to the "subject" of this thread, I ask one question. How can a marerialist believe or think of anything when belief and thought are pure immaterial subjective processes that doe not exist in their reality. The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Royce
The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

But Royce you do not understand. You cannot argue against materialism. Materialism is defined as "existence" so these things that you mention cannot possibly exists since they are not material.

Don't you know that only people who view reality correctly are allowed to assume their conclusions?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce

Back to the "subject" of this thread, I ask one question. How can a marerialist believe or think of anything when belief and thought are pure immaterial subjective processes that doe not exist in their reality. The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

My thoughts are the expressions of the physical processes of my brain. I don't see where the problem is.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
My thoughts are the expressions of the physical processes of my brain. I don't see where the problem is.

I think he means that they are non-material things. If we assume what you say is correct, then it still seems a distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it to come about to begin with. Can't it? Leaving a hammer in the rain causes it to rust. We don't say that the rust and all it's particular properties does not really exists because it is caused by rain do we?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think he means that they are non-material things. If we assume what you say is correct, then it still seems a distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it to come about to begin with. Can't it? Leaving a hammer in the rain causes it to rust. We don't say that the rust and all it's particular properties does not really exists because it is caused by rain do we?

No, my thoughts aren't non-material, they are electrical impulses in my brain.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, my thoughts aren't non-material, they are electrical impulses in my brain.

I was thinking that the definition of thought is somewhat different from that. I think you have pinpointed another "cause" to your thoughts as it is traditionally defined. But regardless, I am beginning to understand why you stuggle with this topic so much. As I suspected, it is semantic in nature which, as long as we understand that, shouldn't really amount to any major differences in conclusions. We'll see.

So I reiterate my earlier point that you cannot make claims like "all things that exists are material" until you actually define what you mean by material. To defend the statement "all things that exists are material" with the comment "because material means those things that exists" is a meaningless statement and explains why there is so much of a semantic problem around this word. This is why I was asking from the very beginning of my participation in this thread that you explain what you mean by "material".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I was thinking that the definition of thought is somewhat different from that. I think you have pinpointed another "cause" to your thoughts as it is traditionally defined. But regardless, I am beginning to understand why you stuggle with this topic so much. As I suspected, it is semantic in nature which, as long as we understand that, shouldn't really amount to any major differences in conclusions. We'll see.

So I reiterate my earlier point that you cannot make claims like "all things that exists are material" until you actually define what you mean by material. To defend the statement "all things that exists are material" with the comment "because material means those things that exists" is a meaningless statement and explains why there is so much of a semantic problem around this word. This is why I was asking from the very beginning of my participation in this thread that you explain what you mean by "material".

Uh huh...

"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...

"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?

Lol. Yes, it is. Too simple. That materialism would imply matter is a no-brainer. Two questions.

1. Define matter?
2. Why are the results included? Is rust considered part of the rain?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Yes, it is. Too simple. That materialism would imply matter is a no-brainer. Two questions.

1. What is matter?
2. Why are the results included? Is rust considered part of the rain?

1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

Hmm I don't mean to be difficult but "what is a subatomic particle"?
What makes one thing a subatomic particle and another thing not? "Stuff" seems pretty vague too.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

So are you saying that you define it in such a way as to capture a legitimate scientific idea(like gravity) as a material thing and no other reason?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm I don't mean to be difficult but "what is a subatomic particle"?
What makes one thing a subatomic particle and another thing not? "Stuff" seems pretty vague too.

Well, subatomic particles are a bit...uncertain. But, again, we know they interact in measurable ways, even with the whole 'wavicle' issue. Sorry for being vague..but a bit of uncertainty doesn't bother me too much, so long as the overall picture is clear.

So are you saying that you define it in such a way as to capture a legitimate scientific idea(like gravity) as a material thing and no other reason?

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? I'm not exactly sure how gravity works, but I know that it does,and that it works the same way in every instance. It can be measured, predicted, and is a result of the interaction of 'stuff', so it counts.

 

[Royce]

But, Zero, gravity is neither matter nor energy but a force along with the strong and weak nuclear forces. Better change you definition.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But, Zero, gravity is neither matter nor energy but a force along with the strong and weak nuclear forces. Better change you definition.

Really? Doesn't effect my definition a bit, if you had been paying attention for the last 20+ pages.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? Doesn't effect my definition a bit, if you had been paying attention for the last 20+ pages.

I'm afraid he's right, Royce. His definition has been patched for all exceptions because "it makes sense" to do so. His definition is just too vague and circular to be refuted. It is obvious to me that Zero knows exactly what he wants to conclude. He just can't provide how he got there except for an appeal to common sense.

 

[BoulderHead]

1. Define matter?

'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

“Lenin did not, of course, maintain that this was the sole characteristic of matter according to dialectical materialism: it is 'sole' only in the sense that it alone marks the boundary between materialism and idealism and is the only validation that materialism needs.”

How about that?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

“Lenin did not, of course, maintain that this was the sole characteristic of matter according to dialectical materialism: it is 'sole' only in the sense that it alone marks the boundary between materialism and idealism and is the only validation that materialism needs.”

How about that?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

I'm more or less with you on that...

And, let me thank some of you who have responded to this thread. Focusing on things like fundamental forces, consciousness, or natural law is, to me, a support of the basic principle of teh way I see the material universe. We're looking at cases where there is something of a grey area, and it is those areas that create the best conversations.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

How about that?

Much better. But what about sensations? I can have sensations as a result of a dream too but dreams aren't matter. Should sensations be more specific?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

Yes that's an important distinction. This view of yours seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of a materialist. The other view, that all things are material, seems like it has to re-define many terms in a way that they are not commonly understood.

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

The whole debate seems to be a chicken and egg debate. Which is why it still goes on after all these years.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge is not wisdom!

But "discernment" on the other hand, is getting pretty darn close.

And now, from the Foundation of Human Understanding, here is Roy Masters.

Originally posted by Zero
Woohoo...more nothing!There is no wisdom without knowledge. You cannot create your own knowledge, and call it wisdom.

Wisdom is the "internal" means by which to measure knowledge, which is "external," by which you begin to understand its "use" or application.

Which is not altogether different from what sascha says below ...

Originally posted by sascha
My point is that in any case the interpretation and evaluation is conceptual business, not material / empirical. Yet you and selfAdjoint do not seem to realize this means that a purely immaterial realm (concepts, logic, etc.) is the determining instance. The interrelations on the level of content are the guideline, also for judging alternatives, truth, contingency, etc..

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

Consciousness is merely a witness to that which is unconscious? How strange?

And yet how do we arrive at the sense of a "structured universe" if not through the means of consciousness? Doesn't that also imply that the universe itself is conscious?

Indeed, how else would we be able to arrive at a sense of structure in our own lives, if not through consciousness?

In which case wouldn't it be fair to say that structure is only achieved by means of the same?

 

[Royce]

From Merriam Webster online dictionary:
"1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter "

From Zero's posted deffinition above
"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?
1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

"Why the bias against materialism?"

Because the position of materialism is in itself inconsistant and self contradictory. It has been expanded to include immaterial things that it cannot refute or disprove so it incorporates them into its system and still call it material whether physical or philosophical.
Materialism is inconsistant, illogical and just plain wrong, not in my opinion but in fact.

Take the first definition from Merriam Webster; "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality" yet Zero et al add energy to the definition as a manifestation of matter. It is not. it is quite possible if string theory or super string theory is right or nearly right that matter is a manifestation of energy not the other way around. Matter is energy tied up and vibrating in dimensional knots.

In any event matter is material and energy is immaterial. So by definition both material and immaterial stuff exists in reality. This is at best a semi-materialist position. Still not good enough? Okay let's expand it to include forces like gravity and strong and weak nuclear forces all of which are immaterial and matter could not exists as stuff in this universe without them so matter is again a manifestation of energy and force not the other way around.

Now we have matter, energy and force all included in the materialistic belief system. Materailism has been reduced yet again to what is now partial materialism. Still not good enough? No we have to account for electromagnetic radiation which is neither matter, energy or force but a field or wave and is not a manifestation of matter or energy as it carries energy and effects matter. So now we have matter, energy, force and EM radiation. Materialism is reduced again to what is now some material and lots of immaterial stuff. This is just the hard cold scientific facts and theories as we know them today.

Lets get philosophical now. According to Zero, gravity is known to exist because its effects can be measured. Let's consider knowledge. Knowledge can be measured both in quality and quantity and its effect are obvious on matter everywhere mankind is present. I therefore submit that knowledge exist in itsd own right and is not necessarily a manifestation of matter.

Now let's look at intent and purpose. I intend to do something and carry out that intent effecting matter. Intent is then a cause of immaterial origin that effects the material. In order to have intent and purpose I must be conscious. Oops there's anouther immaterial thing that can be measured in both quality and quanity.

I desire (an emotion) to go see a movie (a form of art and possibly beauty). I get in my car and drive to the theater to see the movie (purpose). I see the movie and enjoy the experience (What is experience? We all have it but what form of reality is experience, surely not material?). Prior to the main feature a short documentary was shown increasing my knowlege.

I know that Zero will not accept any of this as immaterial but a result of electrochemical processes in my material brain. This is an assumption (another immaterial process) as it is not proven whether thought is the cause or effect of electrochemical activity in the brain.

Want some more inconsistancy? Let's look lastly at the oxymoron Historical Materialism. This combimes materialism with culture and society which are both material (people as physical bodies) and their interactions with one another (immaterial). I don't think that I need to explain how the concepts of culture and and society are immaterial.

We can of course expand materialism to include and account for all of these things but then it becomes even more deluted until it becomes subjective materialism. It is now only a step away from becoming idealistic materialism which is an oxmoron but no more so that materialism itself or historical materialism.

'nough said? I think so.

 

[sascha]

Sorry, Zero, I was out for a day and could not respond. Yesterday you read my post on a 'purely immaterial realm' as quoting names at you, and as appeals to authority. I am not responsible for your interpretation. I gave you these threads because there you can find all the arguments you need.

If pure laws are nothing but a convenient shorthand, you have no basis on which to prove anything. Then also your assertions float in the air, carried merely by other words, by a cobweb of beliefs and myths. But then even materialism will not save you, because judging materiality happens also in this floating mode of all-out relativity. So, by what means do you find the certainty by which you can assert that laws laws exist with certainty only in our minds? Do you mean that just because some, or even the majority, presently have no better grasp of clarity than that, then nobody can have it?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead



“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

Single celled animals as well as bacteria were and are aware, conscious of their environment and respond to its changes. They probably are not self aware or conscious of self but they are aware and respond to stimuli including the proximity of danger, preditors and food. Consciousness developed at least in primitive form right along with life not as a result of billions of years of increasingly complex evolution. Numerous 'lesser' animals are self aware. I would conclude that awareness, consciousness is a characteristic of life itself if not the main characteristic. Is life itself nothing more than a reult of increasingly complex molecules? This has not been proven nor demonstrated. Is DNA, one of the most complex molecules know, alive or simply a product of life?

Again this is just two examples of where materialism cannot hold water. It looks at only one small fraction of reality and accepts it as the whole of reality without reason or support for the soul purpose of denying that the subjective and spiritual realms of reality exist. Materialism itself in a belief which is immaterial despite how or what caused it to arise and come into existence. Ideas, knowledge, thought, philosophies, logic, math, science. art, beauty, consciousness, emotions, intent, pupose, soul, belief, experience, awareness and life are all examples of immaterial things that cannot be soully accounted for or explained by the materialistic paradigm. The list is vertually endless.

Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
Single celled animals as well as bacteria were and are aware, conscious of their environment and respond to its changes. They probably are not self aware or conscious of self but they are aware and respond to stimuli including the proximity of danger, preditors and food. Consciousness developed at least in primitive form right along with life not as a result of billions of years of increasingly complex evolution. Numerous 'lesser' animals are self aware. I would conclude that awareness, consciousness is a characteristic of life itself if not the main characteristic. Is life itself nothing more than a reult of increasingly complex molecules? This has not been proven nor demonstrated. Is DNA, one of the most complex molecules know, alive or simply a product of life?

I don’t see how this really affects my view that that matter is primary, consciousness secondary. No material body, no immaterial consciousness. That being said, I think it is wrong to look at the two as if they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. It seems clear enough they exist together.
What you might like to put as being primary may be that chicken and egg business Fliption mentioned, but to lambaste ‘materialism’ the way you are doing is useless, imo. It is also wrong to label people the way I've seen you do, because I know that until I gave my definition of it, you had no idea of what it meant to me. You are guilty of defining materialism in a way that suits you, then attempting to fit this yoke around the neck of people where it doesn’t belong, and isn’t this exactly what you dislike others doing to you?

Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason.

Ok, I’m not going to spend a lot of time responding to this. Instead, I will let someone else do it for me so I can go make myself some breakfast. This is going to get kinda long, so I apologize up front;

“Both primitive man and the infant, in a naive anthropomorphic attitude, consider it quite plausible that every change and event is the outcome of the action of a being acting in the same way as they themselves do. They believe that animals, plants, mountains, rivers, and fountains, even stones and celestial bodies, are, like themselves, feeling, willing, and acting beings. Only at a later stage of cultural development does man renounce these animistic ideas and substitute the mechanistic world view for them. Mechanicalism proves to be so satisfactory a principle of conduct that people finally believe it capable of solving all the problems of thought and scientific research. Materialism and panphysicalism proclaim mechanicalism as the essence of all knowledge and the experimental and mathematical methods of the natural sciences as the sole scientific mode of thinking.
All changes are to be comprehended as motions subject to the laws of mechanics.
The champions of mechanicalism do not bother about the still unsolved problems of the logical and epistemological basis of the principles of causality and imperfect induction. In their eyes these principles are sound because they work. The fact that experiments in the laboratory bring about the results predicted by the theories and that machines in the factories run in the way predicted by technology proves, they say, the soundness of the methods and findings of modern natural science. Granted that science cannot give us truth--and who knows what truth really means?--at any rate it is certain that it works in leading us to success.
But it is precisely when we accept this pragmatic point of view that the emptiness of the panphysicalist dogma becomes manifest. Science, as has been pointed out above, has not succeeded in solving the problems of the mind-body relations. The panphysicalists certainly cannot contend that the procedures they recommend have ever worked in the field of interhuman relations and of the social sciences. But it is beyond doubt that the principle according to which an Ego deals with every human being as if the other were a thinking and acting being like himself has evidenced its usefulness both in mundane life and in scientific research. It cannot be denied that it works.”
-Ludwig von Mises

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don’t see how this really affects my view that that matter is primary, consciousness secondary. No material body, no immaterial consciousness.

Yes, but without "conceiving" the idea through immaterial consciousness, mommy and daddy wouldn't have bothered to "conceive" you.

Nor, without the original stirring in God's Mind, there would be nothing to speak of terms of the human race or, for that matter anything else.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but without "conceiving" the idea through immaterial consciousness, mommy and daddy wouldn't have bothered to "conceive" you.

Nor, without the original stirring in God's Mind, there would be nothing to speak of terms of the human race or, for that matter anything else.

You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Zero
You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.

Exactly right.
Iacchus, if mommy and daddy where not physical beings they wouldn't have been around to consciously have those thoughts. Now apply this to your god.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason. [/B]

Your statement there is in fact correct. Not because materialism is absurd, but it is your idea about materialism which is absurd.

Matter denotes a philosophical category which denotes objective reality, which is that which is outside and independend of the human mind, and which can be known by the human mind.

Matter as such, does not exist. Matter is an abstract category (like "fruit", "womanhood"). We only know matter by way of material existence forms.

Further you have to distinguish between phyiscal matter (which are discontinuous forms of energy, like particles) and philosophical matter. They are not the same.

 

[Royce]

BH, I can't disagree with any thing you said or in your quote. If my posts were directed at anybody, it was Zero and his claim of pure materialism.
I personally belief that there is no real dichotomy between materialism and subjectivism. They both exist and are real. They both are different manifestations of reality. I also believe in the spiritual or religious realm but that is beside the point.
I do not deny that materialism exists nor do I deny its importance. I do not deny tha subjectivity exists nor its importance. I do not deny spirituality or idealism either.

How do we decide which side of a triangle is prime when the triangle cannot exist at all without anyone of its sides? How then can we decide which aspect of reality is primary? As a materialist you would say that material is prime. As an Idealist I would say even if that were so without subjectivity no one or on thing would know anything of the material so it is moot.

Sound is only vibration until someone or some conscious thing hears it as sound. Light is only radiation until an eye sees it. Without life and subjectivity the material may exist but who would know or care? It would therefore be pointless and meaningless and moot.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
BH, I can't disagree with any thing you said or in your quote. If my posts were directed at anybody, it was Zero and his claim of pure materialism.
I personally belief that there is no real dichotomy between materialism and subjectivism. They both exist and are real. They both are different manifestations of reality. I also believe in the spiritual or religious realm but that is beside the point.
I do not deny that materialism exists nor do I deny its importance. I do not deny tha subjectivity exists nor its importance. I do not deny spirituality or idealism either.

How do we decide which side of a triangle is prime when the triangle cannot exist at all without anyone of its sides? How then can we decide which aspect of reality is primary? As a materialist you would say that material is prime. As an Idealist I would say even if that were so without subjectivity no one or on thing would know anything of the material so it is moot.

Sound is only vibration until someone or some conscious thing hears it as sound. Light is only radiation until an eye sees it. Without life and subjectivity the material may exist but who would know or care? It would therefore be pointless and meaningless and moot.

Sound is still vibration even after we hear it. Light is still radiation after we see it. Thinking that something mystical happens when humans are involved is self-centered egotism IMO.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.

He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate."

And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?

And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...

Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Now how is it possible to be fully conscious, but not be aware that you have a brain? (although it's obviously there). Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support that which is by far "from neutral?" In which respect I don't think you can say the "bias itself" comes from the brain.

If not, then where does it come from?