The Materialist Insult

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I will respond to each and every post in depth, but first need to find the time to do so. Thanks for the interest.


Excuse me but are you still busy???

I mean I noticed you responded to another thread; could you not used that time to respond to this one as you said you were going to do???
edit on 20-4-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I do not know about you LesMisanthrope but, as far as me I would sincerily like to cut through all the BS.

Any thoughts?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


So, LesMisanthrope, is the materialist who recognizes that the body-mind is a single whole, also obliged to feel and act as the whole body-mind?

Isn't everything short of such whole-bodily recognizing, feeling, and acting another form of idealism that tends to separate the body-mind into disparate, even conflicting parts, and potentially breeding further idealism?


The beauty is that everyone already acts as the whole “body/mind” by default. The idealizing begins when we don’t want to accept this, and wish to believe, perhaps out of instinct, that we are somehow more than what we already are.

reply to post by Kashai
 


As I have made clear modern science has no claim to fame with respect to consciousness or for that matter the issue of Psi. In respect to the latter, science has failed to actually test individuals and in consideration to the actual purges that occurred in the recent past. To imply something is false without proper testing of at least a segment of the population that was not effected. By mass murder in respect to the possibility they were psychic is in no way shape or form a valid scientific investigation.

This is an example of the Materialist insult, the idea that science does not have an obligation to investigate any phenomenon a majority of the people on this planet claim as valid.


For something to be considered a phenomena, it must first be a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen. The insult is when trying to pretend things are phenomena when they really aren’t, and then attempt to pass it off as science, which is not built on anecdotal evidence, but the scientific method. The scientific method requires existing things and phenomena in order to observe them demonstratively. Someone simply making claims of such non-phenomena and not being able to reproduce it under observation is suspect to say the least.

In order for anything to be investigated by "science", it must first be capable of being investigated. People telling stories isn't going to cut it.



reply to post by arpgme
 




Materialism is the BELIEF / DOCTRINE that nothing exists except for physical stuff.

This is like saying "I do not believe in things I don't experience in my own life"...

But just because you don't experience something (non-physical) that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Now , if you want to ask for "proof" or "evidence" and it doesn't show up - that just means that non-physical wasn't experienced BY YOU but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

I can ask for many things and experiences, but just because I don't get them that doesn't mean they don't exist.



By that logic, you will have to concede there is a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter.

reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


I look forward to your thread.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 




I mean I noticed you responded to another thread; could you not used that time to respond to this one as you said you were going to do???


I rather use my time however I please. I have no obligation here.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Well... did anyone actually experience a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter? Because if they did, how can it not be true?

Even if the pink elephant floated away and another didn't see, did that mean that the pink elephant was not there? No...



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Did this video answer the questions you asked?

It is well worth a second listen to get a grasp of what 'awareness' is.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
For something to be considered a phenomena, it must first be a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen. The scientific method requires existing things and phenomena in order to observe them demonstratively. Someone simply making claims of such non-phenomena and not being able to reproduce it under observation is suspect to say the least.

In order for anything to be investigated by "science", it must first be capable of being investigated. People telling stories isn't going to cut it.



For 'things' to be investigated they have to be 'observed'. The appearance has to be seen?
Can you see the seer? The 'thingness' is seen by what?
Is the 'seer' a phenomenon'?
edit on 21-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





Well... did anyone actually experience a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter? Because if they did, how can it not be true?



But what if they told you they experienced it in a dream, or while astral travelling, or while meditating, or by intuition?

This is what I've been saying all along. One must experience something before it is deemed true. It must be physical in construction before it can be experienced. Experiencing something involves sensually grasping it. If it cannot be sensually observed in any way, how can it be said to exist?

Name one thing that is known to exist that hasn't been first experienced sensually or measured? Anything that is only a conception imagined with the mental faculties cannot be shown to exist, ie. thoughts, mind, ego, soul, consciousness, God, gravity, the big bang, matter etc. They can only be imagined and deposited as placeholder objects in places we cannot see. These figments of the imagination should at least be questioned to see if they are getting in the way and hindering our understanding. They must at least be shown to exist before we put all sorts of energy into them.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I saw your video except I don't agree with the whole 'seer' concept. I don't see a seer or observer in the human organism, only I see an organism with an ability to contemplate and much more.

She makes mentioning of a happening, or the Now. I think she's trying to say to live in the now, notice it, recognize it; but we already do that anyways by default.

She says that we get confused by concepts and uses the now cliché argument "the map is not the territory"; but isn't this confusion, this naming of things, identifying, conceiving and drawing of maps happening in this now? She says we are confused with our concepts, but continues to conceive reality despite her claims that it confuses.

She speaks of this "aware state where everything is happening"—I assume this is your awareness? Sounds pretty close to the dictionary definition to me.


awareness |əˈwe(ə)rnis|
noun
knowledge or perception of a situation or fact: we need to raise public awareness of the issue. there is a lack of awareness of the risks.
• concern about and well-informed interest in a particular situation or development: a growing environmental awareness. his political awareness developed.


If your doctrine amounts to living in the now—well you're in luck, we're already doing it. There's no further need to even consider it!



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




For 'things' to be investigated they have to be 'observed'. The appearance has to be seen?
Can you see the seer? The 'thingness' is seen by what?
Is the 'seer' a phenomenon'?


The human organism is a thing and a phenomenon. It can see itself.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 

So I asked you:


So, LesMisanthrope, is the materialist who recognizes that the body-mind is a single whole, also obliged to feel and act as the whole body-mind?

Isn't everything short of such whole-bodily recognizing, feeling, and acting another form of idealism that tends to separate the body-mind into disparate, even conflicting parts, and potentially breeding further idealism?

And you responded:

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
The beauty is that everyone already acts as the whole “body/mind” by default. The idealizing begins when we don’t want to accept this, and wish to believe, perhaps out of instinct, that we are somehow more than what we already are.

Yes, everyone does already act as a whole body-mind by default. However, this is typically only understood mentally (if at all) rather than actually being one's real, daily, in life, constant experience.

Even more to this point is what you did not address in my statement about feeling as the whole body-mind.

People do not tend to feel as the whole body-mind. You could even apply your conceptual argument that we feel whole bodily to the extent that we do "by default", but we are definitely not tending to feel with the fullness that comes about when we actually live (not just intellectualize about it) as the whole body-mind.

Feeling as the whole body-mind, from head to toe, integrates mind and body into a conscious whole beyond such conceptualization. However, we tend to not feel whole bodily because we identify with the thinking process, with the process of abstracting from the actual whole body-mind - most people call this "I" or "me". This is a form of idealism because this "I" does not actually exist as an entity, and more importantly is NOT conscious feeling as the whole body-mind.

You can readily notice this process of abstraction from the body-mind versus feeling whole bodily, doing the exercise I mentioned earlier. Simply sit and relax whole bodily, feel whole bodily rather than identifying with the constant stream of thinking that creates this idealistic "I" reference.

Can you actually feel whole bodily - steadily and fully? If not, this is a sure sign that idealism (abstraction into separation) is still occurring. If one is steady and fully feeling, this feeling releases more and more energy to all parts of the body-mind and allows it to constantly function in a balanced, moral, and full manner in life.

It is good that at least some "materialists" realize that the best understanding of the human organism is as a single whole body-mind. However, to just use this solely as a rational basis to presume that nothing can possibly exist beyond the body-mind's experience is a kind of idealism. Rather, such materialists should practice what they preach and actually live whole bodily, in full feeling participation in life - not just mainly thinking, and sometimes acting - but living based on a profound understanding of the singularity of the body-mind.

And so to with spiritual aspirants - this discovery and the living on the basis that we are a single whole body-mind, is essential for real spiritual life in this world that we have appeared in.

Once one is truly integrated as the whole body-mind, the head and vital, upper and lower, cease to be in conflict with one another - the heart or feeling (even love) then comes to the front and everything changes, including living rightly in a very positive and life-supporting manner. On this basis, real exploration of what the whole body-mind may or may not be, can be personally participated in and revealed for oneself, beyond all idealism.
edit on 21-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Though common sense makes clear that what we have determined today has its basis on anecdotal evidence.

Any thoughts?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by arpgme
 

Name one thing that is known to exist that hasn't been first experienced sensually or measured?


Anything that is only a conception imagined with the mental faculties cannot be shown to exist, ie. thoughts, mind, ego, soul, consciousness, God, gravity, the big bang, matter etc. They can only be imagined and deposited as placeholder objects in places we cannot see.

You are contradicting yourself...

You said something can only be said to exist if it is physical (can be sensually grasped) BUT imagination itself is existent, even though "imagination" itself cannot be "physically grasped". Imagination can only be experienced in personal experience, there is no scientific proof or evidence that something called "thought" or "imagination" exists...

Yes, the brain shows "activity" when thoughts are "apparently" thought, but the thought "itself" cannot be sensually/physically experienced and therefore there is no concrete evidence for the existence of a "thought". You can say, "thought is not a thing it is a function which is why a thought in and of itself cannot be physically/sensually grasped" - but that still does not change the fact that a "thought" cannot be physically /sensually grasped, therefore, not ALL things need to be able to be physically or sensually grasped in order for it to be experienced as truth...



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 




For 'things' to be investigated they have to be 'observed'. The appearance has to be seen?
Can you see the seer? The 'thingness' is seen by what?
Is the 'seer' a phenomenon'?


The human organism is a thing and a phenomenon. It can see itself.


Which part of the organism has the experience of seeing?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Feeling as the whole body-mind, from head to toe, integrates mind and body into a conscious whole beyond such conceptualization. However, we tend to not feel whole bodily because we identify with the thinking process, with the process of abstracting from the actual whole body-mind - most people call this "I" or "me". This is a form of idealism because this "I" does not actually exist as an entity, and more importantly is NOT conscious feeling as the whole body-mind.


I have no answer for those who consider themselves this thinking process only. But then again I have no answer for those who claim they are not this thinking process. Both are wrong.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 
But what is your experience when you simply are feeling/being the singular whole body-mind altogether?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




But what is your experience when you simply are feeling/being the singular whole body-mind altogether?

I see no change. Since people are already a body-mind, they then already are, feel, and act as a body-mind.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 
What if you actually persist in simply feeling/being the whole body-mind, for say half an hour, in a quiet locale - what occurs during that time? Anything short of simply feeling/being the whole body-mind fully are all forms of idealism, so it is useful to participate in such an exercise to see how deep the idealism actually runs.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
edit on 22-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
"Different species are capable of perceiving different properties of the world, and no species can perceive every property things may instantiate.

The invisible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are just as real as the visible parts, and whether a specific kind of creature can form conceptual representations of these imperceptible parts does not determine whether they exist.

We would expect, then, that a moderately intelligent enquiring Humean mind will feel permanently perplexed and mystified by the physical world, since the correct science is forever beyond its cognitive reach."


-Colin McGinn in "Can We Solve The Mind Body Problem?"

McGinn's above observations is why I cannot buy into a philosophical theory like Materialism or Physicalism that depends on science for knowledge. There is no guarantee that what we understand through science is the true nature of reality because the possibility always exists that parts of the true nature of reality are permanently hidden from us. All we can perceive is physical, therefore everything is physical? Physicalist theories completely ignore the realm of possibility in an attempt to feel a false sense of certainty... and I would rather be in a certain state of unknowing than have a false sense of certainty.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join