Question for materialists

Originally posted by sirnex
Yea, I'm getting the picture all right. You have memory issues along with your laziness issues.

Still waiting for you to even link to a post where you posted a single damned source.

I know you're not so stupid that you think you actually posted one. So that means you prefer lying, rather than admitting you don't have sources for all the baseless crap you post. That says enough about you and anything you have to say, as far as I'm concerned.

You keep telling me I'm lazy, but how is refusing to post a simple link not lazy? Again, you know you can't back up anything you say, and you're lying.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Well I know intellectually he is already capable of comprehending the science but the implications disturb him.

I think on some level the continuous arguing over something so simple is his way of dealing with his preconceived notions.

He thinks science has turned its back on him because it is merging with spirituality.

It actuality he should be happy that even consciousness is not beyond science, he can understand everything if he keeps up.

I'm more disturbed with the implications of poor reading comprehension and lack of research skills than I am with the perceived implications of misrepresented science.

The experiment exists...regardless of how much you try to deny it...

Sirnex, it doesn't really matter if bsbray11 is lazy . If the information can't be easily found, why not just provide the source again so that others can easily find it and know what you are talking about? It would be a great help to those just coming to this thread and don't want to read through every single page. So, just post it. I would be very interested in what it has to say . Thank You!

Just read this blog post, thought it highly relevant to this discussion, and thought I'd come back just to share: Making the "Hard Problem" of consciousness disappear

I am in agreement with the majority of the post, and it is written in a very articulate manner. If the impasse earlier in this thread really was caused by poor communication skills on my part, perhaps this will help those of you who still don't "get it", to get it.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Just read this blog post, thought it highly relevant to this discussion, and thought I'd come back just to share: Making the "Hard Problem" of consciousness disappear

I am in agreement with the majority of the post, and it is written in a very articulate manner. If the impasse earlier in this thread really was caused by poor communication skills on my part, perhaps this will help those of you who still don't "get it", to get it.

edit on 3-5-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

Awesome. Quantum physics proved that everything is energy and thermal dynamics says that energy can never be created or destroyed only changed. Since it is always changing it is sort of omnipotent in a way, and since it can never be created and destroyed it is eternal, is this sounding familiar?

This is why I think that energy is spirit or God. It is forever changing and eternal.

I also think this is the way things go:

Energy/Spirit/God > Emotion > Thought > Word > Action

I don't believe that material and "spiritual" is separate which is why I am a materialist in a way.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I also think this is the way things go:

Energy/Spirit/God > Emotion > Thought > Word > Action

Could be. I have for a long time now suspected/realized that emotion is more fundamental to understanding what's real than thought. Closer to God, if you will.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I don't believe that material and "spiritual" is separate which is why I am a materialist in a way.

Right. When I use the term "materialism" in order to oppose it, I am thinking of a sort of Newtonian-rationalist-style materialism where spiritually "dead" "stuff" is the only thing that's fundamentally real and that somehow with the right arrangements and networking, firsthand experience is born.

It sounds so patently absurd when put like that, and that's because it is. But I sometimes feel the need to challenge it because I myself thought that way for a long time, and I know a lot of others do.

Obviously the material is real (or "apparently" real, which in my opinion is just as good--calling something an illusion does not explain it but renames it) and there's probably an underlying explanation for it. I am not sure what that explanation is, and I'm not sure anymore that finding an explanation is an important endeavor, although speculation is always fun.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


Emotions and thought are not material. Yet these (feelings) make up what we experience as life.
We see 'things' and we call them material. We touch 'things' and say that we are touching material/matter.
The seeing and the touching is what we experience.
Experience is not material.