Materialist Perspective

It’s my contention that the Universe is a totally materialistic process, and that it can be specified with a paradigm that integrates physics and chemistry and biology.

This specification is based on seeing everything as having a symmetry across levels of construction from the ultimate microscale of the Universe to the construction of galaxies.

See the essay, “Debunking Physics and Discovering the Universe”, located at members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/debunking.pdf

Paradigm

including humans?

Is my experience material?
If not then it would seem to not be real.
If it is not real, how did we find out what was real using experience?

as the Universe is suppose to be

a place for biology to stand on so to speak

Explain conciousness.

Materialism is a refuted and obsolete ‘belief’/notion.

the development and evolution of the Brain physically

well I’m saying that refutation of the material world is erroneous

Nah, say it all you like, but refutation is refutation. That which is refuted is what is erroneous.
What appears as the material is what ‘appears’ as the material. There is nothing that is refuted about the appearance. A mirage of an oasis cannot be invalidated in that the mirage exists (for the perceiver); like the ‘material world’.
Examined to sufficient depth, anything that appears to be ‘material’ will be found to consist of the same ‘stuff’ as mirages.
Accepting the most superficial of appearances as ultimate reality is ‘materialism’, and perfectly valid on that level of understanding, to that perceiving Perspective, but it is a very ‘narrow’ and limited Perspective.
Naive realism has been refuted for centuries.

really

so if a gave you hockey stick and asked you to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto at its base you could do so ? ( NO repairs to the hockey stick is allowed )

it is an impossible task , realistically and materialistically

Hahahahaha!
Can you “stick out your tongue and touch your nose”?
Hahahaha!!
(sweet!)
(rimshot)

so do you agree with me or not ?

You missed my point. Answer the question; “Can you stick your tongue out and touch your nose?” If you have never heard it before, you are probably, right Now! poking your tongue noseward.
My point was in the poor wording of your (trivial) challenge. I can as easily stick out my tongue and touch my nose as I can demolish your tower if you “gave [me a] hockey stick and asked [me] to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto at its base”.
Get it yet?
You never mentioned what I must do with your hockey stick, much less utilise it in the demolition of said bldg. So, the answer to both questions is a definite affirmative. You can give me a stick, and I can demolish the bldg (probably with some carefully placed and tamped charges (usually simple stuff) as well as sticking out my tongue ‘and reaching up with my finger and touching my nose’. Never said that one had to use tongue to touch nose.
When one asks a child the tongue/nose question, they immediately try to touch their nose with their tongue; a short lesson in being mindful and how to think critically.
Get it now?

Besides, your hockey-stick illustration refuted nothing that I said; it doesn’t even make any sense (to me, anyway) in that context.

so do you agree with me or not ?
[/quote]
You missed my point. Answer the question; “Can you stick your tongue out and touch your nose?” If you have never heard it before, you are probably, right Now! poking your tongue noseward.
My point was in the poor wording of your (trivial) challenge. I can as easily stick out my tongue and touch my nose as I can demolish your tower if you “gave [me a] hockey stick and asked [me] to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto at its base”.
Get it yet?

yes I did mention what you are to with the hockey stick , knock the CN Tower down

do you get it now ? its really quite simple

then you don’t get it