The Hypocrisy of the Materialist

Well, good luck with that, mad man.

Something I need to clear up here, Hume, in case you were actually pissed and I was too clueless to recognize it at the time:

I think terms like “rubbish” and “nonsense” actually give people a kind of natural pleasure to say or write. But with “rubbish” in particular, I think the source of that pleasure comes from having heard it with a brit accent.

Now keep in mind here that I am speaking from an American perspective very similar to that of a drunk who assumes that everyone is as drunk as they are. It’s that universal egocentric predicament that won’t let us out of our skin.

But it’s similar to the pleasure we get from Guy Ritchie movies: that hard ass perspective expressed in way that always seems civil and sophisticated.

Jesus, are you cherry picking the sentences or something? Read it again.

This is completely disingenuous- If the decision was already made before it emerged into consciouness awareness, then you certainly did not work towards that decision. And if you want to argue that the processes that lead to that decision are still part of you, that’s fine, but you don’t feel responsible for unconscious processes so, you can’t claim that you are responsible for the decision. You are no more responsible for that decision then you are for the release of neurotransmitters or your heart pumping.

No. If you want to criticize something, at least know what you’re criticizing.

There is no participating self. There’s a shitload of physical variables that come into play, all the time. You simply choose to call all that, the self.

That is the problem. But the funny thing is that “physical objects” are creations of the human mind and not something found in experience, as scientific experiments have shown. So it is funny how people go from something that the human mind has created itself, and not derived from experience, and say that what was created by the mind and not derived from experience, caused our experiences (which was never found by experience). And our “conscious selves” actually shows that it is not an illusion and “free will”. It does show that material is an illusion, though.

Albert Einstein gives a good example of how this goes on

"I believe that the first step in the setting of a “real external world " is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning–the meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.”
The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impression which originally gives rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object " a real existence.” The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on that fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free statements of our thoughts, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the setting of real objects and, generally speaking, the existence of “the real world,” have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection.”

And the funny thing is his theory of special relativity, which is to supply to the “real objects” or “real existence”, says that they do not change and are static. And yet experience of the senses shows that there is change and not static things. But hey, this is the difference between the senses and the physical. One has actual evidence and the other is just a creation of the human mind.

I was just joshing, I even put a smiley in :slight_smile:

Ever seen this? :slight_smile:

You guys should be read about recent research results so you don’t keep arguing about the same old Libet experiments. … -free.html

Lol !

Are you one of those guys who posts abstracts of studies and uses them as evidence ?

Interesting comments on the first link.
Some of the people commenting seem to get it.

A comment about the poster and a knee-jerk dismissal.

I guessed that you would react like that. :smiley:

You only read the abstracts and you provide just that, and you expect me to take it seriously ?

I provided an article about the experiment and a link to the abstract. If I had access to the full text, then I would have posted it. If you have a PNAS account, go ahead and read it.
It’s much easier to link to a 1983 Libet experiment than it is to link to an August 2012 experiment.

Right. The point I’m trying to make is that usually you can’t judge an experiment or a study just by reading the abstract. I very rarely post just an abstract. And if you’re going to claim that these two experiments overturn what was previously demonstrated, all the more reason to post the entire thing.

If you haven’t read the entire study, you shouldn’t even be making those sorts of claims in the first place. it’s foolish.

I didn’t make any personal claim about the experiment at all. I quoted a statement by someone who had access to the full published article.

You posted links to two experiments that supposedly overturn the results of Libbet’s experiment.

I think it’s safe to say that you thought they were not only relevant but also legit.

Unless you just post random shit…of course, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Thanks, Phyllo.

I’d like to check out those links myself.

That was my first impression. Then I started to second guess myself.

Wow. What an anti-scientific attitude.
Yeah, I think it could be legit. The article got approved for publication in the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA’. It’s not a youtube video.

Someone might be interested in finding out about new developments. Someone might say : ’ I’ve got to get this article. I’ve got to check this out’.

I heard about it and I’m sharing some information.

Now note the difference between what you said and what Blackmore said. Furthermore, note that your description of it coincides with my assertion that it is bizarre to assert that we’re not conscious when we’re not thinking about consciousness. Note Blackmore’s statement: when we are not asking the question, there are no contents of consciousness and NO ONE to experience them.

The thing is, Vol, you’re not just cherry picking here. That would seem comparably respectable. What you are engaged in is the dance of the extremist. You’re just poking around looking for any weakness you can find until you just happen to find that gotcha moment that just happens to work. This is why I consider fanatical materialists and objectivists little more than the flip-side of radical relativity. Most people don’t buy either extreme –and for good reason- or just don’t care. Most people find such extremes contrary to their day to day experience. Therefore, the extremist is forced to engage in games: this kind of dance that you are engaged in right now.

Once again, I return to the Blackmore’s assertion that actually getting the materialist perspective is one of truly looking at one’s experience: kind of like a Zen enlightenment or something. In other words, the way the dance or game works can be phrased as such:

[i]If you truly look at it, you will see what I mean.

If you don’t see it; then, you’re just not doing it right.[/i]

This is similar to another game we tend to get out of you, one that comes down to:

Most experts and research agree I’m right; and that which doesn’t does not matter.

Disingenuous…. Are you sure that’s the right word? Did you choose it because it was the right word or because it sounded intellectual?

First of all, let us take a moment of silence and pray Bill Strunk rests easy in his grave.

Okay, let’s get to it: there are a lot of questionable (like that? Simple; anyone can understand it) assumptions in your argument. First of all, you’re assuming that the decision was already made the minute the request was made to make the decision. This, I think, comes from your undue focus on the time-lapse between what registered on the scientific instrument and the moment the subject actually made the decision. What is interesting, at least to me, is how you completely neglect the time-lapse between the time the request was made of the subject, the subject committed to it, and the extra lapse between that and the moment it registered on the measuring instrument. You, for all your (and Blackmore’s) claims of having truly looked at the process, have somehow failed to look at the whole process.

And I think the last part of your post reveals a lot:

It’s like you’re so stuck on giving the world some kind of easily accessed sense of order (something that can be quantified since qualities are so messy) that you are willing to overlook that the complexity of the mind, and the brain that supports it, is far different than the way the heart works. But the heart is a little more simple and fixable; therefore, you want the brain, and the mind it produces, to be just like it.

You’re the scientist. What else would register?

And you simply choose to call them physical variables while most people choose to call the experience consciousness: that which it is like to be.

I’m curious, Vol, why even go on as a philosopher? Why don’t you just become a scientist?

Is it because you like the armchair nature of Philosophy while fearing the discipline involved in being a scientist?

I noticed a lack of mathematics and graphs in your posts.

Very few scientists

get to be

poets as well.

However, great scientists imbed their poetry in their discoveries:

Einstein: relativity.

Heisenberg: uncertainty

Godel: incompleteness.



science may work for you

(but love tends to work for me

good luck with what you’re doing there, man.