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

Materialism is just illogical because of convenient presuppositions

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
After stuffing my face with Turkey, stuffing and mac and cheese, I came home and finished watching this debate on You Tube about Metaphysics between an idealist and a materialist.

I have to say, materialism never made any sense to me. This is because materialism starts with what I call a convenient pressuposion. Whenever your belief is built on convenient presuppositions then it's usually invalid. A convenient presupposition is one that hinges on the removal of things that can invalidate your belief system.

This is what happens with materialism.

Materialist conveniently try to remove the 3 things that will invalidate materialism. These things are consciousness, awareness and intelligence. These things are regulated to "emergent properties" of blind materialism. HOW CONVENIENT FOR MATERIALISM!

Anyone can build a belief system if they start by removing those things that would make their belief invalid.

The fact is, science has zero evidence that things like consciousness, intelligence and awareness are emergent properties of blind materialism. These things are just conveniently regulated to emergent properties in order to validate a personal belief system.

They say because the brain is active in certain areas during certain activities this means that the brain is the cause for this activity being activated and there's no evidence to support this.

When I press play or eject on a DVD player, the DVD player is active but it's just the mechanism that allows consciousness to experience watching Wedding Crashers or The Godfather.

This is the same with the brain. The brain is a mechanism that allows consciousness to experience it's environment. The brain doesn't activate the brain. When I recall a specific memory the brain doesn't activate the recall of this memory. The brain doesn't know why I recalled this memory. The brain doesn't know how I feel about this memory.

The brain is just the mechanism that allows consciousness to recall these memories just like the DVD player is the mechanism that allows consciousness to experience watching Wedding Crashers or The Godfather.

If I get up and walk to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice, the brain can explain the mechanics that allowed me to go to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice.

The brain is not the cause of that experience.

Something has to activate the part of the brain that allows me to grab a glass and fill it with Apple Juice just like something outside of the DVD player has to activate the DVD player after that something chooses the movie it wants to watch.

So I think you have to remove all convenient presuppositions and say consciousness, awareness and intelligence are fundamental when describing the reality we experience and you can't conveniently remove them in order to bulster your belief in blind materialism.
edit on 24-11-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


The brain is just the mechanism that allows consciousness to recall these memories just like the DVD player is the mechanism that allows consciousness to experience watching Wedding Crashers or The Godfather.

If I get up and walk to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice, the brain can explain the mechanics that allowed me to go to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice.

I liken it to a car sitting idling as the mechanics and you the driver. You drive your car (body) thru your will, or dependence, belief, preconditioning, etc.

The you and the mechanics of the body (car) are two different things.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: neoholographic


The brain is just the mechanism that allows consciousness to recall these memories just like the DVD player is the mechanism that allows consciousness to experience watching Wedding Crashers or The Godfather.

If I get up and walk to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice, the brain can explain the mechanics that allowed me to go to the fridge and pour me a glass of Apple Juice.

I liken it to a car sitting idling as the mechanics and you the driver. You drive your car (body) thru your will, or dependence, belief, preconditioning, etc.

The you and the mechanics of the body (car) are two different things.


Good points and I agree with your analogy.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You've seen the graph that tries to give an analogy for motion through spacetime? The one where they have space on the left, time at the bottom, and then an arrow to represent motion through spacetime?

What they're not giving a voice to with that analogy is the arrow: That arrow (momentum) should be thought of as conception, determination, or measurement. Motion (momentum / moments) are determined will / determined time.

Instead of space-time, it should be:

space-conception of-time

body-conception of -will

The reason they are removing conception / consciousness / awareness is because they do not want to acknowledge the spirit - they want to remove spirituality and replace it with chaos, randomness, and causality. That is how they get crazy ideas like "emergent properties".

They practice order out of chaos.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

In my experiences, hard-line materialists are usually very narrow-minded individuals.

In addition to the ones you already mentioned, another area they struggle badly to explain is the nature of dreams. "graph patterns indicating brain activity while asleep" does not quite explain the nature of dreams.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Man I love your threads. Now that's out of the way, and prefacing by saying that I agree with your point, the next question becomes "what is spirit".

I do feel some sympathy for materialist thinkers, seeing as science isn't quite at the point of understanding the actual nature of consciousness yet and the only other way to come to grips with the essence of the human condition is via mystical/religious practice, which materialists tend to have it in for right off the bat!
So it's a limbo between not enough information/information perceived to be tainted, I'd imagine that many just throw their arms in the air and assume nonexistence of spirit as a matter of recourse.

My personal view, for what it's worth is that spirit and soul both transcend the pop-culture "little ghost in your head that drives you and goes to heaven when you die" metaphor (although this is a fine shorthand explanation) and seeps deeply into a pattern of existence that is largely undiscovered and unimagined. We see glimpses of this in the traditions of various religious and mystery schools, but even those are painted heavily in the archetypes and artistic temperament of the experiencers.

All of humanity is on equal footing with regard to The Other; perhaps science will finally make a paradigm shift that will begin to understand this part of life; holographic theories and simulated reality theories are certainly implying headway into this direction. How this will shape daily life and the perception of the "normal" in the future is a fun but frustrating exercise in imagination.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

That's called begging the question. You cannot remove what was never there in the first place.

The problem is that idealism presupposes consciousness, awareness, intelligence, instead of finding them in the real world. That is convenient, but also invalid because your argument assumes the conclusion.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Unresponsible

On one side you have the materialists who cannot handle quantum entanglement, because it opens up the field where synchronicity can be understood logically and effects like low level telepathy, out of body becomes explainable.

On the other side you have the crowd who want their religion to be right and objective measurement and logical understanding of the mysteries are a threat to their religion.

Energetic body bliss can be understood with logical scientific thinking if people using science wants to understand it. Empathic abilities can be measured if science wants to measure.

Some people are already discussing how information exchange is implemented thru entanglement in the brain (specifically microtubules) and have been able to induce out of body in some cases with ultrasound. To be a materialist now day is to be ignorant of the latest ideas and how well they measure up to current observation.

www.quantumconsciousness.org...
www.quantumconsciousness.org...

Bohr was right about entanglement.
edit on 25-11-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly. The chooser cannot be an epiphenomenon of matter. A physicist named Amit Goswami talks all about this and why it's absurd to think that more complexity in the material domain will eventually get to the one who chooses. Indeed, before the choice is made, many quantum physicists believe that consciousness must be a non-localized phenomenon where the brain is just the mechanism, but it's interesting to consider that in the absence of any judgement the choosing self can be thought to reside in a non-local state.

Another thought experiment follows the reasoning and logic of Rene Descartes who, when really observing an object in consciousness, noted that even though the senses cannot penetrate it's true objective reality, that for subject to be aware of object, the object must itself be arising in a consciousness.

When I was a kid I read that and really thought it out, hard, and I was able to follow his line of reasoning and "got it" but it eludes me now the precise reasoning behind it, but to me it appears that he was ahead of his time as the first monistic idealist (consciousness, not matter, is primary).

To be is to be perceived in the very act of perception, and where the distinction between subject and object blurs and where judgements and distinctions are released, then we may be free to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom.

We think too much, instead of just be with.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: neoholographic

That's called begging the question. You cannot remove what was never there in the first place.

The problem is that idealism presupposes consciousness, awareness, intelligence, instead of finding them in the real world. That is convenient, but also invalid because your argument assumes the conclusion.


If by "find in the real world" you mean measure directly using one of the five senses, then you are correct. They are abstract nouns.

If you believe that only that which can be measured directly using one or more of the five senses is real, then I disagree with you. Just because we cannot directly observe or measure something does not mean it does not exist.

Example: Before we had the tools necessary to view microbes, they did not exist to us.


edit on 25/11/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You are in a way describing how objective raw data gets degraded (subjectively interpreted) in the brain. Even if we have a perfect entangled information exchange inside a segment of the brain how the brain is (subjectively) built up with the concepts in the brain will interpret and distort the information from the original message. The question is how much will the raw data be distorted in the transfer from raw data in the brain and the concept that you think in the conscious mind.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




If you believe that only that which can be measured directly using one or more of the five senses is real, then I disagree with you. Just because we cannot directly observe or measure something does not mean it does not exist.


Does not mean it does exist either. Microbes were measured directly. They have always existed, we just didn't see them.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
You placed your mind on the movie,

The mind searched for it with the legs and hands knowing where you last left it...(was this in awareness or unawareness?)(exact or relative? ie general area or hand right on it?)

was the mind directed on the movie aware of the sensation of the footsteps to get the movie since the movie was being carried? or just floating on drifting out there as something of a larger gravity called a movie or desire to see something pulled you towards it like a black hole... and the light of awareness in that moment? Lost everything existent between those two points... of course some impact along the way will say hey I was being mindless or careless... carrying some load that one was not even carrying just holding in the mind.

So was the mind the shelf or the memory... you were holding onto well the mind ceased to be the shelf holding it when you found it in what appeared as non existent until you arrived in the minds space to find it that is the familiar surroundings.

The mind is more like he dvd player it just sits there collecting dust the eye like the TV always recieving some signal even when off or unaware. so in this awareness of what is arising and passing? There is thirst a craving for the form in which one thinks themselves to be... as that label of being.

What is human? Where does all of these concepts arise and pass they entered as concept they exist as concept like bubbles forming all of them popped except what ones focus is looking at then and there... then what occurs in consciousness? Sound doppler effect red shift blue shift crossing over eachother to the green or heart of the matter...

Sound is the way in which these concepts are passed and transported through the canals of the ears... the mental eye or crystal mass transmits out in thought what it is attached too... and the ear tube thinks nothing else hears it unless one opens their mouth reaches an arm moves some legs does some manipulation of form of these concepts in order to



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Does not mean it does exist either. Microbes were measured directly. They have always existed, we just didn't see them.


Then, is it not possible, that consciousness has always existed yet we just lack the tools to measure it directly as of the present?

ETA: In other words: are people of today who say "there is a universal awareness that exists outside the body, connecting all energy together" being viewed in the same way as those who once said "there are tiny organisms that exist all around us that we cannot see, some of which are causing these illnesses"?


edit on 25/11/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Does not mean it does exist either. Microbes were measured directly. They have always existed, we just didn't see them.


Then, is it not possible, that consciousness has always existed yet we just lack the tools to measure it directly as of the present?

ETA: In other words: are people of today who say "there is a universal awareness that exists outside the body, connecting all energy together" being viewed the same as those who once said "there are organisms we cannot see that are causing these illnesses"?


Yes there is a possibility, but the same could be said of Santa Clause or fairies. There are other, more compelling theories.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes there is a possibility, but the same could be said of Santa Clause or fairies. There are other, more compelling theories.


What compels you to place words such as "consciousness" in the same category as Santa or fairies, though? If you look at the concepts of Santa and say the Tooth Fairy, we know they are mainly used to explain away presents appearing on Christmas for children and money appearing in exchange for your tooth.

The point I am making is that the concept of "consciousness" is automatically discarded by materialists using faulty reasoning. They are incorrectly associating the unknown (universal consciousness) with known falsehoods (Santa Clause myth).



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Does not mean it does exist either. Microbes were measured directly. They have always existed, we just didn't see them.


Then, is it not possible, that consciousness has always existed yet we just lack the tools to measure it directly as of the present?

ETA: In other words: are people of today who say "there is a universal awareness that exists outside the body, connecting all energy together" being viewed the same as those who once said "there are organisms we cannot see that are causing these illnesses"?


Yes there is a possibility, but the same could be said of Santa Clause or fairies. There are other, more compelling theories.



Would you care to elaborate upon these, "theories"?
edit on 25-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
The problem in relation to Consciousness is that separating Brain activity with Bells Theorem is Problematic.

At issue is the inherent effect of Brain activity as translated to the effects of interrelatedness in relation to the quantum perspective.

Where what an individual thinks.

Has an effect upon everything created at the same time.



edit on 25-11-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
One can argue the effect from the context of minimalisms but at issue is relevant data.

To be succinct brain activity has an effect upon our environment. Based upon solutions which in and of themselves. relate beyond the actual experience, beyond what we generally define as physical.

And with regards to the."Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox".


edit on 25-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
READ THIS WALL OF TEXT! Do not skip this.

Materialists think about things materialistically; bodily.

e.g. The image or body of two sticks being rubbed together makes fire. Or the old world theory: fire exists within the sticks, and running them together makes the fire come out.

But we know today, it is not the body of the sticks, or image of the sticks, that produces the fire, and instead, it is the energy or forces that are produced that create the image of fire.

With emergent properties, it's the same thing. Their claim is that, "oh the bodies don't seem to have these properties, so there must be some new property that arises out of magic."

But see, they're not just claiming that they can't find the properties, they're literally claiming that they have measured and the properties are not there. i.e. It's impossible magic and stuff - it's a miracle.

Likewise, with chaos theory, they not only claim that, "the properties are not there" but they're also claiming, "and not only that but you literally cannot measure out the properties - the properties are literally indeterminable".

So effectively, they're saying it's not there (just like with the two sticks) and there's no way to measure it: it's "order out of chaos."

And randomness of evolution (random mutations) is the same. It's like saying you can pull something from nowhere or nothing, as if to say non-order actually exists or that you can have an effect be its own cause.

We should all know by now that it is not the images determining their own will or force.

Instead, it is the energy or forces, determining themselves, that produces the images. It isn't chaos that causes effects that are not bound by causality, it is free will - will is the order that is free of causality (cause and effect).

Again, what we're all doing is measuring out our will/energy/spirit into words, the images, the body.

Even physics agrees: it is measurement or quantization of forces (fields) that produces quanta (form).

Look:


Though will is free, it is ordered: Because their will was a secure entry way between two levels, because their will was virtually the same, they imaged a secure entrance to above / below ground in virtually the same way. Again, what is the same is their will - that is where all this order is coming from - determined will. e.g. Convergent evolution is to converge upon the same will, while divergent evolution is to diverge from the same will. Evolution is merely a combination of both converging and diverging to or from the same will or spirit. And there is nothing random about it. When you see them say random, just assume they mean they don't know, not that it is actually random. Similarly, "nature" or "natural" should mean "the will a being is set to determine, is determining, or usually determines", and not "science is random and also magic." Random doesn't exist folks, google it.

Son = Body = Form = Image = Physicality
Father = Soul = Consciousness = Conception = Measure
Holy Ghost = Spirit = Willpower = Energy = Fields

Everything is patterned after what is in will or the spirit. Father has measured it out just like we measure out our spirit or will into words like these or our everyday actions or our bodies through evolution, etc.

Seriously guys, I know I sound like a broken record, but you all need to catch up. I mean, I'm getting tired of hearing myself even. lol
edit on 11/25/2016 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join