Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

[Berati]

I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

I HAVE GIVEN YOU PROOF AND YOU JUST IGNORE ITYOU HAVE BEEN TOLD WHY YOUR PAPERS DO NOT PROVE WHAT YOU THINK THEY PROVE AND YOU JUST IGNORE THAT AS WELL

[Solitary]

It is not up to us to prove the world is physical because it is self evident. The whole idea of the world being mental is based on the belief that the mind doesn't emerge from the workings of the body and is separate. If this were true anesthesia and drugs would not effect the mind, or a bump on the head cause one to loose consciousness. How much more proof does one need that the mind is a product of physical causes?

Michael Shermer points out that human beings consistently choose to consider non-human objects as human whenever they are allowed the chance, a mistake called the anthropomorphic fallacy: They talk to their cars, ascribe desire and intentions to natural forces (e.g., "nature abhors a vacuum"), and worship the sun as a human-like being with intelligence. If the Turing test is applied to religious objects, Shermer argues, then, that inanimate statues, rocks, and places have consistently passed the test throughout history. This human tendency towards anthropomorphism effectively lowers the bar for the Turing test, unless interrogators are specifically trained to avoid it.

This goes for scientists or computer programmers with a religious background also. If someone can prove the world is not physical, explain how you can feel physical pain. The whole concept of gods, or God, is based on the anthropomorphism fallacy in logic. So is the idea of any supernatural entity. Giving God a mind, or any other exaggerated human attribute is this fallacy. The brain is a marvelous thing, but it is not an example of what is the truth anymore than logic is. To think the mind and any concept it comes up with is more than a fantasy it has to be tested in the physical world, which is what science does. When it doesn't pan out by experiment it is dismissed as wishful thinking at best, and insanity at its worst. Solitary

[Hakurei Reimu]

For fuck's sake, Professor Wogglebug, you couldn't even follow the basic theorems that give the real number line its structure and properties when I tried to teach you. You literally don't know how numbers work —the basis of measurement and data-gathering— yet you would proclaim that you know better than us what underlies the entire universe? Complete nonsense.

You seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that in the experiments you cited, no conscious onlooker saw any wavefunction collapse — each and every measurement was done by a non-conscious instrument. There was no consciousness involved in any collapse of any wavefunction. Instead, all of that stuff was inferred long after the fact. Even someone sitting watching the oscilloscope would only deduce the collapse long after the fact, because human brains are really slow compared to quantum phenomena. Any references to "you" and "observer" in physical papers refer to those measurement apparatuses, because that's the lingo. You don't actually perform the measurements, your instruments do (no consciousness involved), and their actions of measurement disturb the system in very precisely predictable ways. And I say actions of measurement because —as been pointed out to you repeatedly— an observation of a system is an action on it, and one must disturb a quantum system for it to reveal anything. If you don't disturb the system, it putters along and reveals nothing to you.

(Also, it would take a painfully long time to perform these experiments if physicists didn't do it automatically, and faster data collection and number crunching means faster papers —the painstaking experiments of Robert A. Millikan was a necessity at the time, but no more.)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I do apologize, I am in search of this verifiable evidence. I would love to be a Materialist. I do not want to be ignorant. I must have entirely missed this evidence at some point I have no idea how. Can you please remind me? What is the evidence for Materialism?

Other folks have beaten me to it, so I will simply say: It's the only model that works in science, therefore it it the default. If you have a better model, then you must demonstrate proof. "Disproving" materialism does you no good until you have a working model to replace it.

[TrueStory]

I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

THIS SENTENCE IS SCROLLING!

Do you believe in a god that in impacts your life?

[Casparov]

If you look back at 500 years ago when people believed in the material + spiritual world, and taking into consideration that in those intervening years there were no proof of the spiritual world, then what's left? The material world is then the default position. Now you want to bring in mind, but from the material world point of view, mind is just the activities of the brain, which is matter. So this materialist position is consistent. It requires no more assumption.

"Materialism is the default position."

Fine junior Ill try this one fucking time after that back to walking in front of a speeding semi. Materialism is the default due to one simple fact, it works. It is the simplest non woo infested version of reality. All this bullshit of solipsism that you are trying to put forward simply adds unneeded levels of complexity to the equation with zero benefit.

"Materialism is the default position."

Now on to the truck analogy, If as you claim that reality is consciousness based you would not cease to be upon getting plowed by a speeding semi truck. If is it materialistic in nature, well I can't say it was nice knowing you. See dingus its simple.

Okay, I see your point... I think. It's basically like a Christian saying, "You'll know hell is real when you die!" That's basically your argument just reversed, right? Okay so when a Christian tells you that you can prove hell is real by getting hit by a speeding semi, what is your typical response? (and do you consider that a convincing argument?)

The arguments you have put forward, that one can safely assume are your reasons for denying materialism, have been dismantled as mostly conjecture on your part based on a predisposed position of materialism not being true. Not one ounce of evidence exists, outside of philosophical mental masturbation, for anything else other than materialism.

Well see now here this is more apologetics again. This is called an Argument From Ignorance fallacy. Just because a claim has not been, or cannot be proven false is not proof that it is true. Accepting this as proof of Materialism would be fallacious, and therefore I will not do so as it is a personal rule of mine to not accept logical fallacies as proof for any claim.

Now Im not the most educated in science on this forum, but junior even I can see that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You want a "reason to be a materialist" heres a good un: If it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, chances are it isn't a dog.

The problem with that is there are competing models other than Materialism that claim the exact same thing. The Duck Principle, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck," is actually quoted in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf on page 3 after allegedly demonstrating that everything we know of reality is better explained by a Virtual Reality Model of reality rather than an Objective Material Model of reality. I have two competing reality models, two competing positive claims, both citing the same Duck Principle as proof, how do I make a determination about which is correct? I have a dilemma here. If there is proof that Materialism is true, then I would be able to make an informed decision. Is there such proof?

I HAVE GIVEN YOU PROOF AND YOU JUST IGNORE IT

I am asking for proof. The sentence you have written is, "I have given you proof," which I cannot accept as proof. You neglect to reference this alleged "proof". You neglect to even hint at what this alleged "proof" may have been. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have proof in support of Materialism then provide it please. I am begging you!

It is not up to us to prove the world is physical because it is self evident.

"It is self evident."

That we definitely exist in an Objective Material Universe, as opposed to say... a Virtual Universe, is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Do you disagree? Are you arguing that whoever makes a positive claim does not have to provide proof? If someone approaches you and says, "It is not up to me to prove the world is virtual because it is self evident," what would your response be? Would you accept this statement as proof? If not, you should be able to comprehend why I do not accept your statement as proof.

You seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that in the experiments you cited, no conscious onlooker saw any wavefunction collapse — each and every measurement was done by a non-conscious instrument. There was no consciousness involved in any collapse of any wavefunction. Instead, all of that stuff was inferred long after the fact. Even someone sitting watching the oscilloscope would only deduce the collapse long after the fact, because human brains are really slow compared to quantum phenomena. Any references to "you" and "observer" in physical papers refer to those measurement apparatuses, because that's the lingo. You don't actually perform the measurements, your instruments do (no consciousness involved), and their actions of measurement disturb the system in very precisely predictable ways. And I say actions of measurement because —as been pointed out to you repeatedly— an observation of a system is an action on it, and one must disturb a quantum system for it to reveal anything. If you don't disturb the system, it putters along and reveals nothing to you.

Thank you for the apologetic defense against my negative arguments, however I am requesting positive evidence FOR Materialism, not apologetics against attempts to disprove Materialism. That Materialism has not been, or cannot be disproven is not proof that Materialism is true. To suggest this would be to employ the logical fallacy known as an Argument From Ignorance, and I cannot accept fallacious arguments as proof for anything as a personal rule.

Do you believe in a god that in impacts your life?

I am making no claims about reality at this time. I am reverting for a moment to agnosticism and trying to make an evidence based decision on the best foundation for my world view. I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I simply am unable to deny this, and therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. Beyond this I am uncertain. There are claims being made from several competing camps. Materialists claim that I exist in an Objective Material Universe and my consciousness is the product of Material interactions. Idealists claim that consciousness is all that exists and I am experiencing existing in a virtual reality that is the product of information processing. Dualists claim that my consciousness is my immaterial soul which was born into a material universe.

I am skeptical, yet open-minded, about all of these claims. I am surveying the evidence from all sides and weighing them equally as possible explanations. I am trying to decide which one explains all of the evidence the best. That is all.

[josephpalazzo]

Okay, I see your point... I think. It's basically like a Christian saying, "You'll know hell is real when you die!" That's basically your argument just reversed, right? Okay so when a Christian tells you that you can prove hell is real by getting hit by a speeding semi, what is your typical response? (and do you consider that a convincing argument?)

It's not, because the evidence shows that after billions of people who have died in the last 10,000 years, no one came back to tell us that hell exists. It doesn't prove that hell doesn't exist, but there are no convincing reasons to believe that it does. Same logic is applied here as to what happened in the last 500 years: no evidence of the supernatural,so why believe in it!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf on page 3 after allegedly demonstrating that everything we know of reality is better explained by a Virtual Reality Model of reality rather than an Objective Material Model of reality.

In a virtual reality model, you have to postulate "something else" exists in order to sustain that virtual reality (computers, god(s), whatever). Again applying the same logic: there is no evidence that such a"something else" exists outside of our reality, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

I have two competing reality models, two competing positive claims, both citing the same Duck Principle as proof, how do I make a determination about which is correct? I have a dilemma here. If there is proof that Materialism is true, then I would be able to make an informed decision. Is there such proof?

There is no philosophical arguments to prove "existence". The only thing I can tell you is go hit a tree, if that doesn't convince you that a tree is real, nothing else will. But it's not a philosophical argument as such. But the fact that you won't jump from a 10-story high building, because you know you will die, and you know that you have no convincing arguments there is an afterlife, only a hope, but no guarantee, so that tells you that in some sense, the reality around you is real. At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Thank you for the apologetic defense against my negative arguments, however I am requesting positive evidence FOR Materialism, not apologetics against attempts to disprove Materialism. That Materialism has not been, or cannot be disproven is not proof that Materialism is true.

Materialism can be disproven: find something other than material stuff in the universe. What? You can't? Too fucking bad!

Every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff in the universe, and not find anything other than material stuff, that's evidence for materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that you will only find material stuff in the universe, whatever you look at, wherever and whenever you look. Every time you find only mindless, mechanistic, material stuff at work in the universe, that supports materialism. This prediction has borne out every single freaking time it has been tested. The fact that you do not understand this principle is not my problem.

Your problem is that consciousness is a phenomenon and not a substance. It has all the hallmarks of something that is a phenomenon of physical matter: that there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain, that physical chemicals affecting the brain also affect consciousness, that functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions, and so forth. That you do not accept that this is proof that consciousness is a brain phenomenon is not my problem.

I am skeptical, yet open-minded, about all of these claims. I am surveying the evidence from all sides and weighing them equally as possible explanations. I am trying to decide which one explains all of the evidence the best. That is all.

I do not believe you know what those words mean. You use "skeptical" and "open minded" like they are magical wands for warding off our criticism of your ideas, rather than actual discipline in your thinking. You say you are evaluating the evidence from all sides, yet you flat out ignore all of the evidence that fails to find any substance other than the material — all the evidence that falls in line with the materialist claim that there is nothing but material stuff at work. You haven't recognized this evidence before, and I don't expect you to start recognizing it now.

So, go away, Professor Wogglebug. You are exactly the kind of person who won't be convinced by any evidence.

[Moralnihilist]

You claim that quantum reality(virtualiism) is a valid reality model. Fine, where is evidence for it. By the way, the paper you linked to was called "The Virtual Reality CONJECTURE" for a reason. It isn't actually proof, nor is it an actual scientist stating that this is an actual evidence backed theory. It is simply one educated guys "What If". You know what this kind of paper is lacking though? EVIDENCE.

You are claiming all kinds of fallacies are being used against you, yet you are all to willing to believe a paper called conjecture. And whats worse is that you are using this paper as if it proves something other than materialism. I shall call this fallacy "the argument from a bullshitter".

con·jec·ture  [kuhn-jek-cher]noun 1.the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2.an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

So numb nuts I restate the simple statement, If there is no evidence for anything other than materialism, If(to quote Hakurei Reimu) every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff, and not find anything other than material stuff, chances are the universe isn't a virtual reality.

[Casparov]

It's not, because the evidence shows that after billions of people who have died in the last 10,000 years, no one came back to tell us that hell exists. It doesn't prove that hell doesn't exist, but there are no convincing reasons to believe that it does. Same logic is applied here as to what happened in the last 500 years: no evidence of the supernatural,so why believe in it!

That there is no evidence of the supernatural is not a positive argument for Materialism. I am not arguing that the supernatural exists, I am asking for positive evidence in support of the positive claim that we exist in an Objective Material Universe. 

In a virtual reality model, you have to postulate "something else" exists in order to sustain that virtual reality (computers, god(s), whatever). Again applying the same logic: there is no evidence that such a"something else" exists outside of our reality, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

If you "apply the same logic" you run into the same problem. I am not asking you to falsify or adopt competing models, I am merely asking you to justify your own. That this "something else" has no evidence does absolutely nothing to address the issue of evidence for Materialism.

There is no philosophical arguments to prove "existence". The only thing I can tell you is go hit a tree, if that doesn't convince you that a tree is real, nothing else will. But it's not a philosophical argument as such. But the fact that you won't jump from a 10-story high building, because you know you will die, and you know that you have no convincing arguments there is an afterlife, only a hope, but no guarantee, so that tells you that in some sense, the reality around you is real. At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion.

"Go hit a tree," is the best you can do for evidence that Materialism is true, yet Brian Whitworth could tell me to "go hit a tree," in a Virtual Reality, and I still have no basis to determine which claim is correct because both produce the exact same result. I do not understand how this could ever prove Materialism over other models?

The same is true for why I do not jump from a 10-story building. No matter which claim is true, and no matter if life persists or ceases upon physical death, I will still refuse to jump from a 10-story building. I have goals and ambitions that I wish to accomplish, and jumping from a 10-story building would wreck my chances no matter which model of reality turns out to be correct. Materialism being false would not change my decision to not jump off a 10-story building. This is obviously not evidence that Materialism is true.

"At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion." Kind sir, you are saying Materialism is founded upon a wager. I have no qualms with telling you that I refuse to found my own world view on a wager. I am no more willing to base my world view on a "wager" that Materialism is true than I am to base my world view on "Pascal's Wager."

Materialism can be disproven: find something other than material stuff in the universe. What? You can't? Too fucking bad!

Every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff in the universe, and not find anything other than material stuff, that's evidence for materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that you will only find material stuff in the universe, whatever you look at, wherever and whenever you look. Every time you find only mindless, mechanistic, material stuff at work in the universe, that supports materialism. This prediction has borne out every single freaking time it has been tested. The fact that you do not understand this principle is not my problem.

This is called Begging the Question. You are providing the conclusion of the argument as a premise. You are basically saying, "Materialism is true, therefore Materialism is true."

The claim is, "when you look out into the universe you only find material stuff." That's the claim. The claim is that what we perceive is "material stuff." Materialism claims that, "we exist in an objective material universe," and every thing we perceive is objective material stuff. That's the claim. What I am asking for is evidence which supports this claim, which you have not provided.

Brian Whitworth could say, "The Virtual Reality Model can be disproven: Find something that's not virtual in the universe! Every time you look out into the universe you find only virtual stuff. The Virtual Reality Model predicts that you will find only virtual stuff, and the fact that all we ever find is virtual stuff supports the Virtual Reality Model." You see, Brian Whitworth would be making a positive claim there without providing a shred of evidence, just as you have done.

Your problem is that consciousness is a phenomenon and not a substance. It has all the hallmarks of something that is a phenomenon of physical matter: that there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain, that physical chemicals affecting the brain also affect consciousness, that functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions, and so forth. That you do not accept that this is proof that consciousness is a brain phenomenon is not my problem.

I have no idea what this has to do with me asking for evidence that Materialism is true. That there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain has nothing to do with whether or not said brain is material. That functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions is not proof that these "brain regions" are material. I am asking for proof of Materialism, I am not asking you to disprove the claim that consciousness can exist separated from a brain.

I do not believe you know what those words mean. You use "skeptical" and "open minded" like they are magical wands for warding off our criticism of your ideas, rather than actual discipline in your thinking. You say you are evaluating the evidence from all sides, yet you flat out ignore all of the evidence that fails to find any substance other than the material — all the evidence that falls in line with the materialist claim that there is nothing but material stuff at work. You haven't recognized this evidence before, and I don't expect you to start recognizing it now.

So, go away, Professor Wogglebug. You are exactly the kind of person who won't be convinced by any evidence.

If I am presented legitimate evidence I will. Do you consider what has been offered so far evidence? Falsifiable evidence? You have said, "Every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe." I can't accept this as evidence I'm sorry. This is Begging the Question, you can't just present the conclusion as the premise and call that proof. Then you suggest that the fact that no one has ever been able to preserve a brainless consciousness in a bottle of formaldehyde is proof that Materialism is true. Just because an apposing claim has no evidence cannot be used as evidence that your claim is true. You cannot just point to the fact that some other competing claim has not been proven to prove that your claim is true. Sir, this is another fallacious argument, not evidence, and yet you chastise me for being someone who will not be convinced by this "evidence"...

Shall I chastise you in return for being exactly the kind of person who accepts such weak and unconvincing arguments as evidence for your world view?

You claim that quantum reality(virtualiism) is a valid reality model. Fine, where is evidence for it. By the way, the paper you linked to was called "The Virtual Reality CONJECTURE" for a reason. It isn't actually proof, nor is it an actual scientist stating that this is an actual evidence backed theory. It is simply one educated guys "What If". You know what this kind of paper is lacking though? EVIDENCE.

I'm not claiming that Virtualism is true. Virtualism is just another positive claim like Materialism is a positive claim.  I am skeptical of both claims equally, and open minded towards both claims equally. The fact that Virtualism lacks evidence does not prove that Materialism is true any more than the lack of evidence for Materialism proves that Virtualism is true. If you claim that we definitely exist in an Objective Material Universe, I am simply asking for the evidence that justifies making such a claim. That competing claims have not been proven is not proof that Materialism is true.

You are claiming all kinds of fallacies are being used against you, yet you are all to willing to believe a paper called conjecture. And whats worse is that you are using this paper as if it proves something other than materialism. I shall call this fallacy "the argument from a bullshitter".

No I'm not willing to believe this paper. It is just another positive claim out there and I am asking what evidence you have that proves that Materialism is true apposed other positive claims such as this paper. If Materialism has no evidence to support it, then it is on equal ground with Virtualism according to you. Both have zero evidence. So how do you determine which is true without any evidence to support one over the other?

So numb nuts I restate the simple statement, If there is no evidence for anything other than materialism, If(to quote Hakurei Reimu) every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff, and not find anything other than material stuff, chances are the universe isn't a virtual reality.

See, you say, "if there is no evidence for anything other than materialism," and yet this entire discussion is over whether or not there actually is any evidence for Materialism. You have not provided any such evidence. You have simply said there is no evidence to support the competing assertions, and have taken this as proof that your assertion is true. I have a personal rule that I cannot accept fallacious arguments as proof for any assertion, therefore I cannot accept the lack of proof for competing claims as proof for Materialism. This is a personal principle of mine, if you differ with regards to your own world view that is up to you. But don't expect me to compromise my principles in order to accept your positive assertion.

[Jason78]

This thread is just fascinating.

[josephpalazzo]

"Go hit a tree," is the best you can do for evidence that Materialism is true, yet Brian Whitworth could tell me to "go hit a tree," in a Virtual Reality, and I still have no basis to determine which claim is correct because both produce the exact same result. I do not understand how this could ever prove Materialism over other models.

Fine, let's forget about the words "material" and "illusion" as I think those are getting in the way. Let's call it "stuff". You are made of  "stuff" as the tree is. When you die, your body is going to be made of stuff. When the tree dies, it's just made of stuff. When anything dies, it's just made of stuff. Rocks are also made of stuff. Everything in the universe - this planet and all it contains, the stars, etc. - is made of stuff.

Now you're claiming that there is stuff + "something else not made of stuff and through some mysterious process produces the stuff". The burden of proof is on you to prove that "something else not made of stuff and through some mysterious process produces the stuff" exists. And since you cannot make that proof - no one can - so, what's left is "stuff", and that you obviously cannot accept. So you should ask yourself why? I would guess that the fear of dying and the prospect that you will  no longer exist is the underlying reason why you refuse to accept this argument.

[Hakurei Reimu]

This is called Begging the Question. The claim is, "when you look out into the universe you only find material stuff." That's the claim. The claim is that what we perceive is "material stuff." Materialism claims that, "we exist in an objective material universe," and every thing we perceive is objective material stuff. That's the claim. What I am asking for is evidence which supports this claim, which you have not provided.

The hell it is! "When you look out into the universe you only find material stuff" isn't just something I'm asserting, as would be required for this to be a real begging the question. It is the observation. It also happens to be a prediction of materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that what you will find behind the scenes of all universal phenomena and objects is what we would call "matter" — tangible, fundamentally simple entities obeying physical laws. Our observation of that universe reveals that behind every phenomenon within it is "matter" and only "matter."

And by "material stuff" we don't just mean "anything in the universe" as you seem to be implying. We do not include spirits, innate intelligence, conscousness-as-a-thing, vital force, crystal powers, and the whole pantheon of what we usually shove under the category of "woo." Materialism predicts there are some things you will not see in this universe. This is what makes materialism falsifiable. And the observation is that we, indeed, don't see anything but material stuff at work.

What is apparent to me is that you do not know what "evidence" means when talking about evidence for a hypothesis. A piece of evidence for a hypothesis is a fact about the universe in line with the predictions of that hypothesis and not with alternatives.

Is it true that when you look out into the universe, do you only find only matter operating behind the scenes? Yes? Then that's evidence for materialism. Each observation of that fact or similar facts in line with the hypothesis of materialism is evidence for materialism. Materialism's first claim (as you have listed them) is a prediction about what you will find in the universe. When that prediction bears out —when you find facts in line with that prediction— then materialism is supported; it is evidence for materialism. Period.

Brian Whitworth could say, "The Virtual Reality Model can be disproven: Find something that's not virtual in the universe! Every time you look out into the universe you find only virtual stuff. The Virtual Reality Model predicts that you will find only virtual stuff, and the fact that all we ever find is virtual stuff supports the Virtual Reality Model." You see, Brian Whitworth would be making a positive claim there without providing a shred of evidence, just as you have done.

Not even close. These assertions are, indeed, merely assertions... unless and until you can distinguish a virtual object from a non-virtual one. This is, of course, very hard to pin down for someone within the virtual world as is proposed, which is why the virtual reality model remains a conjecture. But once we're able to tell the difference between a virtual object and a non-virtual one by some means available to us, the virtual reality model will become a falsifiable model we can gather data for.

I have no idea what this has to do with me asking for evidence that Materialism is true.

It's cutting off any counterargument from you that consciousness is a non-material stuff. Seriously, in future, if I ask for evidence of non-material stuff in the universe, save yourself some time and don't cite consciousness or quantum mechanics.

If I am presented legitimate evidence I will.

At this point, I don't think you know what legitimate evidence is.

Do you consider what has been offered so far evidence?

What, the entire body of science that has so far found it unnecessary to propose things that are not material? Absolutely!

Falsifiable evidence?

THEORIES and HYPOTHESES are falsibiable, you boob. There's no such thing as falsifiable evidence.

You have said, "Every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe." I can't accept this as evidence I'm sorry.

The body of evidence that convinced the scientific world that materialism is the word of the day couldn't fit in this entire forum, let alone one of my posts, and I would destroy my carpel tunnel if I tried. The statement "every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe" is necessarily a summary of that body of evidence. Are you looking for the one piece of evidence that proves without a doubt that the universe is materialistic? Sorry, no one piece of evidence proves materialism. Except for the most trivial of hypotheses, no one piece of evidence proves anything in science. I cannot think of a major theory in science that was proven with a single piece of evidence, let alone a whole paradigm.

No one piece of evidence proves materialism, but when that one piece becomes untold trillions of individual observations supporting materialism, the weight of that evidence becomes all but incontrovertalbe.

Again, it is not "begging the question" when I point out that the evidence —which is what is deduced from the reality we're talking about— happens to match a prediction of a particular theory. In a different world, with a different way of working, it could easily not be the case. That it does happen to be the case that our body of evidence is consistent with materialism is not my fault, nor is it a "begging the question" fallacy as you claim, Professor Wogglebug.

Then you suggest that the fact that no one has ever been able to preserve a brainless consciousness in a bottle of formaldehyde is proof that Materialism is true.

I just want some evidence that a consciousness can exist as a thing in and of itself. It's up to you to figure out how that's to be accomplished.

Can't figure it out? Well, too fucking bad.

Just because an apposing claim has no evidence cannot be used as evidence that your claim is true.

So you finally admit that your entire strategy in your "debate" with Mr.Obvious was a waste of both of your respective times.

You cannot just point to the fact that some other competing claim has not been proven to prove that your claim is true. Sir, this is another fallacious argument, not evidence, and yet you chastise me for being someone who will not be convinced by this "evidence"...

But I did point to specific evidences: the body of evidence known as "scientific knowledge." They are observations that do not admit the existence or role of any nonmaterial substance in the universe. That that body of evidence happens to coincide with the claim of materialism is just too bad for you.

[TrueStory]

I am making no claims about reality at this time. I am reverting for a moment to agnosticism and trying to make an evidence based decision on the best foundation for my world view. I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I simply am unable to deny this, and therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. Beyond this I am uncertain. There are claims being made from several competing camps. Materialists claim that I exist in an Objective Material Universe and my consciousness is the product of Material interactions. Idealists claim that consciousness is all that exists and I am experiencing existing in a virtual reality that is the product of information processing. Dualists claim that my consciousness is my immaterial soul which was born into a material universe.

I'm not asking you to make a claim on reality or your worldview, I asked if you believe in a god that impacts your life?  If you are certain of consciousness then you can certainly discuss the merits of that consciousness.  So do you believe in a god that impacts your life? 

[Moralnihilist]

I am a drooling retard who likes to pretend that I have the slightest fucking clue as to what I am talking about.

Look asshat its so fucking simple that a history major can get it.
IF all that is found in the universe is material stuff, THEN logically the universe is a materialistic one.
IF something else other than material stuff is found, THEN you would have a fucking leg to stand on.
UNTIL someone with a functioning brain(this obviously excludes you) can present evidence for something other than material stuff outside of mental masturbation(what you actually seem to want to do) there is NO INTELLIGENT REASON to assume anything outside of the material stuff exists.

This is the same reason many people on this forum(and in the world) don't believe in god. THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST ONE EXISTS.
Because some, albeit highly educated, guy posts a paper based on a thought he had(mostly conjecture papers are nothing more than ideas to stimulate conversations to assist in the fleshing out of theorems) does not make it a valid counter argument to the established(and evidence backed) norms.