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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How can materialism account for experience?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm glad you brought up the human body's role in consciousness. The main thing I have always wondered about consciousness is why do we start to exhibit it around the age of 3? Were we born with it? Are we nurtured towards it?




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The problem in example was literally convincing a schizophrenic that he or she was not a schizophrenic using such models.

Today that is not happening anymore. But essentially, today the focus on treating the symptoms. Including counseling fundamentally on the focus on the condition being more or less a coping mechanism perhaps the result of genetic memory.

In lay terms psychosis occurs because a persons descendants were, due to the needs of society. Expected to deal with stressors that are no longer required in relation to how society functions.

In relation to genetics there seems a kind of temporal lag where deviations from social expectations are occurring faster than genetics are able to compensate.

But at the same time that human behavior cannot be addressed by expecting people to conform to modeling derived from what we know of consciousness in general.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Materialism can't account for these subjective experience because there's not a one to one correspondence of red=good or red=bad. A person can connect red with a bad memory at a stop light when a person ran a red light and they got in an accident. Why not associate that memory with the green light or the yellow light or the color of the car that hit them?


You can create a conditioned response like that though. Just as Pavlov did with his dog, we've done similar experiments on people. Especially young children which were later determined to be pretty unethical because they ended up causing life long conditioned responses that weren't good for the person. For example having a totally adverse and panic response to something as simple as touching or feeling soft fur. Imagine if every time you saw or touched fur you'd have uncontrollable freak outs!! No puppies for you I guess..

But as far as materialism goes, objects don't have meaning themselves. We give meaning to everything we experience which is why it varies from person to person. Things exist in an objective way which we all share (at least it seems that way.) But our subjective experience of these things is where their meaning comes from and that meaning is created by us for us on an individual level. We can then share that with language with each other which will then effect our own meanings to various degrees as well. But the things themselves are just neutral with no inherent meaning which they transmit to the observer.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang


"So take your pick, either with a mystical worldview that has invalid premises that you must accept on faith, or a materialistic worldview where you reluctantly accept that nothing you "know" is certain."


If anything materialism present the opposite and that everything is known and that we need not look otherwise to conclusions.




edit on 31-10-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Let me clarify. With a mystical worldview you may claim you have certainty of your view, but that is contingent on having faith in an invalid premise. With a materialistic worldview, you may not claim certainty of anything.

If you believe materialism presents that everything is known, you are either misunderstanding the inductive nature of the scientific method, or misrepresenting the meaning of "to know"



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang


Philosophically Materialism is not simply a factor relevant to modern science.

It is also a way of life that is related historically to human behavior.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

How is it that materialism would present that everything is known?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang


It cannot in my opinion based upon how materialist define the world today in general.


edit on 31-10-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang
a reply to: namelesss

I don't think we can quite call materialism obsolete just because of the spooky results of our experiments in the quantum realm.

Oh yes! I Agree with you!
The findings of quantum is but one nail in that coffin! *__-



No matter how contradictory our experiments are to our current knowledge, we cannot discount the fact that we may conduct a future experiment that explains everything in a different way. Think of how sure we used to be that the earth was flat.

It is not the 'experiment' that 'explains', it is the one interpreting the results, the particular Perspective.


Our knowledge of the quantum realm is just as shortsighted as those humans who once were sure that the earth was flat.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics
Science will never find that a truly Universal Law is not what it is.
There is no opposite of Reality! *__-


No matter how much we discover about physical reality, we can never know with certainty that materialism is true,




because there are realms within physical reality that we do not have the capability to experience. This does not make materialism any less valuable as a worldview.

What you are saying is that if someone gives an automobile to someone who has never experienced a car before, and doesn't explain the 'actual reality' of it's design.
Then the guy might have driven it longer, if he didn't keep having to learn the hard way not to pee in the gas tank. To keep having to re-invent the wheel... again...
Understanding the basic workings of Reality pragmatically and geometrically improve the quality of life!
It is possible that, thus, sanity (unconditional Love/Enlightenment) is actually achieved! *__-

And we DO have the capacity to experience/Know all that is!
That comes with sanity.



Mystical worldviews may try to claim with certainty that their view is true, but it is inevitable that their premises will be invalid in some way.

Truth is not 'invalidated', Reality' is not 'invalidated', they are not 'falsifiable'.
And the proof is in the pudding. *__-


So take your pick, either with a mystical worldview that has invalid premises

I'm talking about 'valid' premises! What use for invalid premises? No philosopher has any use for invalid premises; that is most of what we do, critically examine premises from all Perspectives to determine validity.
(Otherwise... You can end up a 'materialist'! *__- )

It's an 'evolutionary process', it takes time, and many are going to have to die, but we'll all get Here!


that you must accept on faith, or a materialistic worldview where you reluctantly accept that nothing you "know" is certain.

Faith is Knowledge/experience.
Knowledge = experience. Is that 'certain'? Not anything is ever 'certain' to an intelligent sane person!
But I Know what I Know, for the single moment that I Know it! As do you.
After that it's 'memory', which cannot be 'believed'.

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
www.sciam.com...

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The c2 component in E=mc2 Mathematically translates to Time-Squared.

edit on 1-11-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
In relation to how we are constructed fundamentally time could factor in as a structural component.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Given Consciousness functions at the quantum scale it is very likely we do not just have at the very least access to three dimensions.

At the very least we have physical access to four dimensions.

Our ability to focus on the present could be an expression of that, in relation to a sensory event.

Any thoughts?
edit on 1-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

When I say mystical worldviews have invalid premises, I'm talking purely in terms of logic. Take for example a premise of Christianity.

Premise: God is omnibenevolent

In order to hold this premise as part of your worldview, you have a base of supporting knowledge and experience.

Supporting experiences:
-My pastor assures me God is omnibenevolent
-My parents assure me God is omnibenevolent
-People who believe in God's benevolence are better people than those who don't
-The Bible says God is omnibenevolent
etc.

Note, all of these supporting experiences may be sufficient to have faith in the premise that God is omnibenevolent. However, they do not logically entail that God is omnibenevolent. That's what I mean when I say mystical worldviews hold invalid premises. Every mystical worldview has one or more premises that do not have a valid logical justification, and must be held on faith.

Other than that, I think we are pretty much on the same page. Good insights!
edit on 2-11-2016 by Wang Tang because: SECRET



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
At the very least we have physical access to four dimensions.

Our ability to focus on the present could be an expression of that, in relation to a sensory event.


Interesting insight. I've been thinking about this for a while. I don't have anything to add, but you might be on to something.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang
a reply to: namelesss

When I say mystical worldviews have invalid premises, I'm talking purely in terms of logic.

This is going to be fun... *__-


Take for example a premise of Christianity.

And we're off!!


Premise: God is omnibenevolent

In order to hold this premise as part of your worldview, you have a base of supporting knowledge and experience.

Not necessarily. Some people catch a 'belief', and it lingers, self-defended...
And Knowledge = experience.


Supporting experiences:
-My pastor assures me God is omnibenevolent

That is not Knowledge/experience, it is either a caught 'belief', or just mindlessly accepted on 'authority'.
The 'knowledge/experience' is of the pastor talking, and the thoughts that you perceive, not the 'Omni-' itself.
Few there are capable of original critical thought/philosophy.
So as this is not an experience of God's omnibenevolence, it can be discarded.


-My parents assure me God is omnibenevolent

Fails for the same reason as #1.


-People who believe in God's benevolence are better people than those who don't
-The Bible says God is omnibenevolent
etc.

Once again, must be discarded as not relevant to the issue.


Note, all of these supporting experiences may be sufficient to have faith in the premise that God is omnibenevolent.

Belief, perhaps, hypothesis, perhaps, notion, perhaps, but 'Faith' is something else completely.
Unconditional Faith is an unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love/Enlightenment!
A 'believer' (one hosting a 'belief') finds supporting 'evidence' everywhere. It is an ego/emotional thing, rather than logical/rational. A 'belief' is an infection of the ego/thought. That with which 'we' identify.
A perceived attack on a 'belief' is perceived as an attack on oneself! It is pathological.


However, they do not logically entail that God is omnibenevolent. That's what I mean when I say mystical worldviews hold invalid premises.

I agree that the examples that you offered in 'defense' of God's Omni- is, logically (not 'believerly', thought), invalid.
And your fallacious evidence has nothing to do with the 'mysticism' to which you refer.
Mysticism is the 'seeking/becoming' Enlightened/unconditionally Loving!
In this 'state', one experiences/Knows the Universal state of Oneness.
This experience is what defines mysticism!

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!


Every mystical worldview has one or more premises that do not have a valid logical justification, and must be held on faith.

So, actually, a mystical worldview is based on actual transcendental experience/Knowledge, as is Faith!
And quantum makes a great showing, finally, on the same stage!
Many diverse lines of enquiry converge on this Truth.

Now, taking that 'mystical premise' of Our Universal Oneness, 'that' certainly logically explains quite clearly how all qualities are Our/God's qualities!
All eyes are God's eyes, all hands are Our Hands, etc...
We are One!
We are in complete sum total, God in all Our splendid, ALL inclusive qualities!
Thus, We/God are all powerful, all Knowing, etc... because all that exists, is God.
All existence is but a moment of God's/Our Self Knowledge!

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

"We are all unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) perceiving the One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality, every unique moment of existence!"

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Perfect logical accounting for 'God's' Omni-ness!


Other than that, I think we are pretty much on the same page. Good insights!

There IS only One Page!
(Many unique Perspectives! *__- )

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)



edit on 3-11-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I appreciate your response, I now realize using Christianity as my example for a mystical worldview probably muddled my argument. This is because although Christianity at its core is mystical, the way it is practiced today by the majority of Christians today is not mystical, but is instead simply a brainwashing process. The examples of "experiences" I presented were in fact parts of the standard Christian brainwashing process.

Now please don't misunderstand me if you are Christian, I am not attacking Christianity, merely the way it is practiced. I still have a lot of work to do in order to discover the true nature of Christianity and other mystical views.

Changing gears, you bring up a point about knowledge=experience, and the experiences I presented as not sufficient to hold the premise that God is omnibenevolent. Let me explain...

When a pastor tells me that God is omnibenevolent, I agree, it is not an instance of me experiencing God's omnibenevolence. However, it is an experience that strengthens my belief that God is omnibenevolent. I completely agree that if you have not experienced God's omnibenevolence firsthand, then you do not have sufficient experience to believe God is omnibenevolent. But how many people have never had this experience, and yet still believe in his omnibenevolence, purely through the brainwashing process? In my opinion, MOST Christians believe in things like God's omnibenevolence without having had any relevant experiences in the matter.

I'm afraid I may be drifting from my original argument, as I have now committed this whole post to an attack on the practice of Christianity. What was this thread about again? Ah, something about materialism and experience.

Ok real quick on knowledge=experience. What is knowledge? It is not experience. Experience contributes to knowledge, but it does not equal knowledge. For example, I have knowledge that 1+1=2. That is not an experience, that is knowledge. So knowledge does not equal experience. Or am i misunderstanding what you meant by knowledge=experience? I don't know.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang


You were taught that 1+1=2, this you understand because of experience you were educated about and you understand this based upon experience.

If you did not understand something deductively then you would not be able to expand upon it to its natural conclusion.

But there are in fact people to try to claim that a statistical evidence derived inductively is evidence is enough.



edit on 4-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang
a reply to: namelesss
I appreciate your response, I now realize using Christianity as my example for a mystical worldview probably muddled my argument. This is because although Christianity at its core is mystical, the way it is practiced today by the majority of Christians today is not mystical, but is instead simply a brainwashing process.

I am enjoying the discussion, thank you.
There is the mystical side to all 'religions', as long as there are mystics. And they/We all offer the fruits of what amounts to the same experience, whether of Xtian or Muslim or Jew or whatever.


The examples of "experiences" I presented were in fact parts of the standard Christian brainwashing process.

No wonder they didn't work on me, nothing to 'wash'! *__-
All those vectors of 'belief infection', that you mentioned, only works if one is susceptible to 'beliefs'.


Now please don't misunderstand me if you are Christian, I am not attacking Christianity, merely the way it is practiced. I still have a lot of work to do in order to discover the true nature of Christianity and other mystical views.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian.
According to Jesus, the only identifying quality of his 'followers', is unconditional Love.

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

Perhaps I get close, at times, but I can see clearly enough to know how far I would have to go before such an announcement.
Perhaps the Honesty and Humility would prevent me from ever making such a claim...


Changing gears, you bring up a point about knowledge=experience, and the experiences I presented as not sufficient to hold the premise that God is omnibenevolent. Let me explain...

When a pastor tells me that God is omnibenevolent, I agree, it is not an instance of me experiencing God's omnibenevolence. However, it is an experience that strengthens my belief that God is omnibenevolent.

I understand that.
A 'belief' will find 'validation' in anything. It is a matter of survival.
If the same pastor told you to shove a Batman doll up your keister, I doubt that you'd take him seriously, or do it (but who knows...), as you have no preexisting 'malware'/beliefs to run/feed.
As you have a 'belief' in the Omni-, you are very ready and willing to accept anything that will support it, from any source.


I completely agree that if you have not experienced God's omnibenevolence firsthand, then you do not have sufficient experience to believe God is omnibenevolent. But how many people have never had this experience, and yet still believe in his omnibenevolence, purely through the brainwashing process? In my opinion, MOST Christians believe in things like God's omnibenevolence without having had any relevant experiences in the matter.

One doesn't 'believe' depending on experience and rational examination, and a 'free-will choice', we 'believe' because we caught a 'belief', like the flu. We might even have been deliberately infected (some people actually go door to door attempting to spread their 'belief' infection!
On the other hand, examining my theory is completely explanatory, logically, of the Omni- claim!
No 'belief' necessary.


I'm afraid I may be drifting from my original argument, as I have now committed this whole post to an attack on the practice of Christianity. What was this thread about again? Ah, something about materialism and experience.

It seems that at a conversational time like this, the best direction to go is a Heineken and a doobie and watch the clouds drift by... *__-
I might have joined you in your 'attack' on the vanity and superficiality of religions, but we have no 'free-will' or 'choice'.
And in the Perfection of Reality, there be 'religions' and it's denizens.
All one can really do is to Love!
Unconditionally!


Ok real quick on knowledge=experience. What is knowledge? It is not experience. Experience contributes to knowledge, but it does not equal knowledge. For example, I have knowledge that 1+1=2. That is not an experience, that is knowledge. So knowledge does not equal experience. Or am i misunderstanding what you meant by knowledge=experience? I don't know.

With all humility, it was Plato or Aristotle who first voiced (as far as I have heard) that Knowledge = Experience.
Let me expand on that a bit;

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

(That IS mine! *__- )

As that is so different than the common misunderstanding, it might take a bit of contemplation to come to an understanding.
Everything that we experience/perceive is Knowledge.
To experience a fire, we Know 'hot'.
To experience a person telling us about fire, we know the words that we hear, and we know the thoughts that we perceive relating to those words and images.
But not 'heat'!
In religion we hear/know about (someone's notion of) 'God', in mysticism, We 'become' One with God, Universal!
That's Knowledge!
All existence, every unique moment, is Self Knowledge!



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai

You were taught that 1+1=2, this you understand because of experience you were educated about and you understand this based upon experience.



Exactly!

Experience+Education=Knowledge
I have knowledge that 1+1=2 BECAUSE I have experienced it and was educated on it, leading to an understanding also known as knowledge.

Knowledge=Experience
"1+1=2 IS experience"




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join