Author Topic: Nature Of Reality?  (Read 833 times)

Offline Solitary (OP)

Nature Of Reality?
« on: April 26, 2014, 11:47:25 AM »
Quote
If the mind is completely a product of the material function of the brain then: 1) There will be no mental phenomena without brain function. 2) As brain function is altered, the mind will be altered. 3) If the brain is damaged, then mental function will be damaged. 4) Brain development will correlate with mental development. 5) We will be able to correlate brain activity with mental activity – no matter how we choose to look at it. 

The materialist hypothesis - that the brain causes consciousness - has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated. Every single question that can be answered scientifically - with observation and evidence - that takes the form: “If the brain causes the mind the...” has been resolved in favor of that hypothesis...

.that Egnor has not done is counter my claim that all predictions made by the materialist hypothesis have been validated. If he wishes to persist in his claims, then I openly challenge Egnor to name one prediction of strict materialism that has been falsified. To be clear, that means one positive prediction for materialism where the evidence falsifies strict materialism. This does not mean evidence we do not currently have, but evidence against materialism or for dualism. I maintain that such evidence does not exist – not one bit...

 To think the world is just mental, and that it is the result of God's mind, is not validated by science in any way, and shame on scientists that think this is so because of their religious beliefs. Science has scientific evidence and peer review theories to back it up, mentalism has only thought and faith to back it up. Mental states coincide with brain (material) states, even if not known how this happens, inserting God (mental) of the gaps is no answer anymore than other cases of inserting God of the gaps in our lack of knowledge.  :wall: Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 12:07:00 PM »
Lol. The thing is, Casparov came on here asserting (wrongly) that atheists are materialists, period. If anything I think "free thinker" is a better definition. I understand the possibility of things as yet identified, and the possibility of alternate universes and so on. What he basically did was put us in the position of defending materialism; I don't actually think of myself as one, I just go on what the evidence says.

There are so many different theories out there, from holographic universes to string theory and so on that have yet to be proven, that numbnuts can claim anything. But what he hasn't understood is that evidence has to be concrete enough and understood by the majority to be agreed upon. Silly man.

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2014, 10:49:01 PM »
What is an idea? And how can more than one person arrive at the same conclusion independently

Take the Neolithic revolution for example,

How does this fit in materialism? (This is a question, I honestly don't understand what you're saying)

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2014, 08:20:33 AM »
An idea is a collection of different activities in the brain. Recognizing patterns, imagining a possible outcome and memorizing it for further critical thinking and analysis

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2014, 08:43:04 AM »
To think the world is just mental, and that it is the result of God's mind, is not validated by science in any way, and shame on scientists that think this is so because of their religious beliefs. Science has scientific evidence and peer review theories to back it up, mentalism has only thought and faith to back it up. Mental states coincide with brain (material) states, even if not known how this happens, inserting God (mental) of the gaps is no answer anymore than other cases of inserting God of the gaps in our lack of knowledge.  :wall: Solitary

While I agree, none of that matters to a solipsist as all of that evidence has been gathered within the illusion. Unfortunately for the solipsist, he also cannot use any evidence gathered within his claimed illusion either.  Although it appears not to stop them??  This type of hypocrisy is Casparovs dilemma.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2014, 12:36:44 PM »
I don't like hanging labels on myself because too many people have labeled me in my life. I might be a materialist but I prefer to think I'm open to other possibilities. I started out life as a fundie Mormon and am now a "hard" atheist, because I am able to admit to myself when I am wrong and able to move on. I study everything continually, from religion to life to politics. Adaptation and change is key to human survival, after all.

People on here overall seem to be more accepting to new ideas and change than most other group settings I've been in. that is why I am still here.

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2014, 01:43:14 PM »
To be fair, I have a hard enough time as it is entertaining the idea that reality is composed of tiny wiggling strings.  No matter what the actual answer is I'd put money on it being really really weird.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Nature Of Reality?
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2014, 01:57:20 PM »
Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.