It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: TheJourney
You should watch Deepak Chopra getting interviewed by Richard Dawkins. It's basically this whole topic in 20 minutes.
originally posted by: onequestion
Where does the materialism stop, does it stop at the brain or does it extend out further?
Is the world around you a material part of your mind or it actually separate? Does it only have the appearance of separation?
originally posted by: skunkape23
There is one solid experiment that could be performed to see if the brain=mind.
We will all find an answer to that question in due time.
My hunch tells me that the brain acts, on some level, as a transceiver for an external consciousness, but the only people who know the answer to that question are incapable of making a report in a scientifically verifiable way using our current instruments.
Is the world around you a material part of your mind or it actually separate? Does it only have the appearance of separation?
originally posted by: onequestion
Where does the materialism stop, does it stop at the brain or does it extend out further?
Is the world around you a material part of your mind or it actually separate? Does it only have the appearance of separation?
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Suggesting that "strict" materialism is just a view like any other view is like saying not believing in Santa Claus isn't anymore valid than believing in Santa Claus. I'm sure the last time an adult told their mom they STILL believe in Santa Claus, their mom graciously accepted, as all viewpoints are equal, right?
Are all viewpoints equal?
There's only one thing I really know about this. Without empirical evidence, belief has nothing to anchor it to our world. In a world of belief, ANYTHING goes. Belief is only limited by our imagination.
Belief won't save you if you jump off a cliff. It won't stop you from dying. Belief won't make you win the next lottery drawing. This world runs on rules. It doesn't need Santa Claus or Jesus. However, if that's what someone wants to believe than they can.
Know what I believe? I believe nobody is real. Real isn't real. Everything is predetermined except a random feed. In essence, we're unpredictable predetermined states. And you know what? My belief is equal to yours or anyone elses. There's no empirical evidence necessary and I can go on believing this until I die.
All beliefs are equal. I agree with that.
To say that we can demonstrate a definite correlation to some physical activity in the brain and some mental state of the individual, does not prove that the physical activity is CAUSING the mental state. That is purely speculative.
Is your mind reacting to the chemicals, or is your mental state causing a change in your brain's chemicals?
So my point is, to accept an immaterial mind at all will inevitably open your mind up to new possibilities, or at least to a greater sense of uncertainty, if it's actually thought about in any depth.
originally posted by: TheJourney
Technically if someone stuck strictly with the scientific method, they simply wouldn't speculate beyond the evidence. But, we are human, and we form world-views. And strict materialism is just that, a world view, and in many cases is an assumption in interpreting evidence, rather than being what the evidence itself says.
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TheJourney
However, we cannot even demonstrate, measure, define, nor observe, any correlation between non-physical activity and some mental state. At least physical activity can be demonstrated, and correlated, for instance through brain injury, narcotics, exhaustion etc. Such physical acts have been proven to cause changes in "mind". while non-physical activity, or an immaterial mind, cannot even be demonstrated, let alone be proven both logically and empirically, that it can have any affect whatsoever on anything whatsoever.
This question assumes that there is an immaterial mind interacting with chemical changes in the body, yet refuses to question how this assumption can be made. The premises "there is an immaterial mind" and "the immaterial mind causes changes to material chemicals" is an assumption more likely held together by strings of bubble gum, than by reason or evidence.
Except the concept of mind is a closed system of understanding, insofar as it signifies itself, rather than actual phenomena. It is circular reason that assumes itself as the cause of its own effect, before it has even been demonstrated that it can and does affect anything. In this case, it closes our minds to any other possibility but itself, rather than opens it.
originally posted by: Pinke
Hiya Op,
1. Not speculating beyond the evidence
Think you need to reevaluate your feelings on this. Einstein speculated furiously beyond evidence. He needed to. Lawrence Krauss talks about this now and then also when it's brought up, because it's a common misconception that imagination and speculation has no place in science. The major aspect of science a process is discarding ideas when they become less probable.
2. Strict materialism is 'just' a world view
Again, it being a world view doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. What does make it potentially true is the evidence. Scientific evidence by its very nature will be primarily materialist or physical. To quote Laplace when asked where God was in one of his ideas the person said, "I had no need of that hypothesis." Laplace wasn't an atheist, just God's intervention wasn't need to hang the planets up. So far, there is very little evidence that would call for the need of an undetectable immaterial consciousness.
The evidence for a material mind includes information such as genetics. None of us is an individual. We are all made up of behaviors that come from our parents who provided our genetic material. We can all be denied are consciousness or behaviors by having bits of brain removed. It is possible that something conduits through the mind, and I personally am open to that but I don't see it as likely.
Science can't disprove the idea, but I think we've yet to come up to situation that (with high probability) absolutely requires it. The very idea of an immaterial mind would potentially turn science upside down, because it would require something other than science to find it since science is the studying of material for the most part. Science is yet to really demonstrate the existence of a complete 'non-thing' I believe?
originally posted by: Bluesma
I am far from being capable of affirming a valid argument in this topic- I am not educated enough to try.
But my brain brings up a memory in association-
The disclosure of my mother on the subject of physiology and psychology (she was a psychologist and psychotherapist).
In speaking about state like depression, she said they find correlations with certain chemicals in the body and brain, that are imbalanced in someone who is depressed.
What is not clear, is whether the mental state of depression is caused by the chemical imbalance,
Or whether the chemical imbalance is caused by the mental state of depression.
She said
We simplify this to the general public by affirming that it is the chemicals as cause of the mental experience, because that way, we can respond to it, treat it, with medicine.
Even if it turns out we are wrong (it is the mind which causes the chemical imbalance) then the placebo effect, in most cases, still steps in effectively. Because they believe their mental state is caused by the physiology, changing the physiology causes them to change their mind.
This was many many years ago. My mother is dead now, and I have a stepmother who is also a shrink. She is of a more current generation of mental health professionals that have completely embraced the concept of mental states as products of physiological states, so all you need is the correct medication and dosage.
But when talking to her, I still keep remembering that earlier admission from my mom, and wonder if the placebo effect is in fact working on a large scale now. The shrinks are no longer aware that they are fibbing a bit and pretending to know more than they do- now they believe their fib 100%.
In a capitalistic society, it is probably unavoidable that the prominent beliefs will center around affirmation of strict materialism, so that goods can be valued as essential....
originally posted by: TheJourney
You say, 'that can't be physically measured, therefore it is irrelevant,' because you are pre-defining it as irrelevant. It's a pre-defined thought loop, where you're structuring your thinking on the premise that only one type of information is relevant, and then when confronted with any other information, you say it is irrelevant, only because you're pre-defined it as irrelevant. So, anything not empirical, while it could be true, can never be empirically verified. Therefore, even if anything other than empirical reality were true, it could never be acknowledged and pursued.