Author Topic: Naïve Immaterialism  (Read 6533 times)

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2014, 06:52:51 PM »
I am not taking it any further. Consciousness exists. That's as far as I go. Just because I describe what consciousness is, does not take it any further. Consciousness is still all I know exists. I haven't gone any further.

I have something which I know exists and I can describe it. Consciousness is immaterial, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is not a material object, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is not an apple, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness is incorporeal, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further. Consciousness has no mass and occupies no space, but it's still the only thing I know that exists, I have not gone any further.

I have something which I know exists, and I can describe it. You seem to be accusing me of claiming that something beyond consciousness exists or making a further positive assertion or positive claim, but I am not doing that. The only thing I know is that consciousness exists, and I can describe "consciousness" and it's qualities based on my knowledge of it's existence without going a step further.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2014, 07:16:46 PM »
I agree consciousness exists and is real, but that means we are a mind that requires a physical body functioning properly. If the mind was separate from the physical world, drugs would not effect it. It has ties into the physical universe---in other words consciousness exist, and so does a physical body together, not separate from each other. We are a conscious physical body that has a brain that creates, things that exist in imaginary places, or even in reality. But it can also become too real for some people and become faith in magic with absolute knowledge, when all they have is ignorance. The mind is not real, it is a very persistent illusion when we are conscious. It's not real objectively, only subjectively, but conscious is real objectively, and subjectively both, but only in pairs does the subjective exist because it requires the physical world to exist. Solitary
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 07:28:28 PM by Solitary »
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2014, 01:35:18 PM »
I am not taking it any further. Consciousness exists. That's as far as I go. Just because I describe what consciousness is, does not take it any further.
Yes it does!
Describing it IS taking it a step further. It's the description we disagree about.. not it's existence. Agreeing on it's existence is step one (I think therefore I am),  nothing else.

So after "I think therefore I am" all theories start on the same foot because zero evidence has been provided about the description.
YOUR description is what I am accusing you of assuming at this point because "I think therefore I am" provides no evidence about the description of consciousness.  None! Zero! Zilch!
It proves existence but says nothing about the nature of existence because:
Quote
Quote from: Casparov on May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM
The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.

At this point you must admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism since no evidence has been put forward concerning YOUR description.


Quote
I have something which I know exists, and I can describe it.

See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description.

Quote
You seem to be accusing me of claiming that something beyond consciousness exists or making a further positive assertion or positive claim, but I am not doing that. The only thing I know is that consciousness exists, and I can describe "consciousness" and it's qualities 
You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits and you have already agreed to this!



Quote
based on my knowledge of it's existence without going a step further.
Wrong again. You are assigning all sorts of descriptions and qualities to consciousness based on the fact that it exists... not on any evidence. "I think thereore I am" provides NO evidence about descriptions or qualities.

As I keep repeating:
I will not entertain any questions concerning the "qualities" of consciousness until you admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism after “I think therefore I am”
There would be no point to this since you have already reached your conclusion that consciousness is immaterial prior to any discussion about any evidence.
So here is your only option.

Admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism

Without this admission from you, no meaningful questions can be asked about consciousness and whether it is immaterial or an emergent phenomena of material properties because you are already setting immaterialism as the default position before any evidence has been put forward.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2014, 07:22:25 PM »
Yes it does!
Describing it IS taking it a step further. It's the description we disagree about.. not it's existence. Agreeing on it's existence is step one (I think therefore I am),  nothing else.

I'm confused, you say we agree on "it's" existence, but maybe we are talking about two different things. To clarify, can you please describe what it is that we agree exists?

Quote
Admit that materialism is at least as likely as immaterialism

Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Dualism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Fying Spaghetti Monsterism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as only apples existing?

You are suggesting that all assumptions are equally as likely. I refute this premise. I will not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism unless you can explain why I should accept the premise that all assumptions are equally as likely.

Do you admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism?

I don't. I think that one is much more likely than the other, even though they are both assumptions. So I disagree with you.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2014, 07:48:16 PM »
I'm confused, you say we agree on "it's" existence, but maybe we are talking about two different things. To clarify, can you please describe what it is that we agree exists?
"It" is the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood. That's where we start.

Or, I could simply insert my own description like you attempt to do and declare it the more valid definition
"Consciousness is an emergent phenomena which is the result of material properties and interactions."

Which would you rather go with?
Would you be ok with me simply assuming my definition is the correct one or would you rather I prove it.
Let's say you would prefer I prove it... SAME GOES FOR YOU.

Quote
Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Dualism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Fying Spaghetti Monsterism? Why not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as only apples existing?

I admit that after "I think therefore I am" ALL possibilities are equally as likely as any other SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN PRESENTED.
"I think therefore I am" does not prove immaterialism. It does not prove materialism, it does not prove flying spaghetti monsterism.... get it?

Quote
You are suggesting that all assumptions are equally as likely. I refute this premise. I will not admit that Materialism is at least as likely as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism unless you can explain why I should accept the premise that all assumptions are equally as likely.
Here is the explanation: No evidence has been presented at this point.

Quote
Do you admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism?

We are proceeding step by step therefore right after "I think therefore I am"...
YES, I admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism or immaterialism or any other idea as no evidence has yet been provided.

Quote
I don't. I think that one is much more likely than the other, even though they are both assumptions. So I disagree with you.
That's because you are biased.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 07:50:34 PM by Berati »
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2014, 08:47:15 PM »
"It" is the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood. That's where we start.

You are describing consciousness! I thought we weren't supposed to do that! You said, "See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description." and also, "You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits!"

You just described consciousness as "the ability to experience or to feel and a sense of selfhood," so are you now agreeing that describing consciousness is okay?

Quote
Or, I could simply insert my own description like you attempt to do and declare it the more valid definition
"Consciousness is an emergent phenomena which is the result of material properties and interactions."

Which would you rather go with?
Would you be ok with me simply assuming my definition is the correct one or would you rather I prove it.
Let's say you would prefer I prove it... SAME GOES FOR YOU.

You seem to miss the point. "Consciousness is an emergent phenomena which is the result of material properties and interactions" assumes a necessary origin, which goes a step beyond mere description.

If I said similarly, "Consciousness is the immaterial phenomena which is the result of it's fundamental nature inherent in existence itself." Then I would have gone far beyond mere descriptions and asserted an origin of consciousness, and you would be right to protest if I did so, but I have not done so. I have merely described consciousness, I have not asserted an necessary origin.

Instead of asserting any origin of consciousness, we can merely describe consciousness. Even if consciousness is truly an "emergent phenomena" consciousness itself is still not material. It may be the result of material objects interacting with each other, but the phenomena of consciousness itself is still immaterial. We can arrive at this description of consciousness without inferring any origin or moving beyond "consciousness exists." We are only describing consciousness.

Asserting an origin of consciousness is moving a step forward, describing consciousness is not.

Quote
I admit that after "I think therefore I am" ALL possibilities are equally as likely as any other SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN PRESENTED.
"I think therefore I am" does not prove immaterialism. It does not prove materialism, it does not prove flying spaghetti monsterism.... get it?
Here is the explanation: No evidence has been presented at this point.

We are proceeding step by step therefore right after "I think therefore I am"...
YES, I admit that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is at least as likely as Materialism or immaterialism or any other idea as no evidence has yet been provided.
That's because you are biased.

Any assertion made without evidence is indeed an assumption, and all assumptions that lack evidence are equally as likely. I can agree to this if you can agree that the starting point is:

1) Consciousness exists.

And consciousness is described as the ability to experience or to feel and having a sense of selfhood; a phenomena or ability itself having no mass, occupying no space, no definite location, being incorporeal, and immaterial.

If you disagree with this description of consciousness, are you saying that "the ability to experience" is a material object with a measurable mass and velocity and location that occupies space?

We must be able to agree on a description of consciousness before we can go any further, otherwise we have not truly agreed on what exists. We both know that "the ability to experience and have a sense of selfhood" exists, and I say this is a description of something that can only be described as immaterial. Do you agree? Is "the ability to experience" immaterial?
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2014, 01:26:29 PM »
You are describing consciousness! I thought we weren't supposed to do that! You said, "See, you just did it again. You cannot describe it from " I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" only proves existence, it provides no description." and also, "You cannot describe consciousness or its qualities just from "I think therefore I am" as the only thing it proves is that consciousness exits!"
Quote

Oh great, now you want to argue semantics. And here I thought we both spoke English.
Be warned. This line of obfuscation will still not allow you to insert your beliefs as the starting point.
All definitions are from Google.

“I”: the person who is speaking or writing
“Think”: To direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.
“Therefore”: for that reason; consequently.
“I” the person who is speaking or writing
“Am”: 1st person singular present of be. “be” : to exist

Oh look, consciousness is not mentioned.

This is how logic works:
Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
For this discussion A = I think, B = I am
Therefore:

“I”: the person who is speaking or writing,
 “Think”: To direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.

=

“I”: the person who is speaking or writing:
“Am”: 1st person singular present of be. “be” : exist

Logical connection B(I am) = C(I exist)
Conclusion A = C (I think) = (I exist)

So there you go. Consciousness is not even mentioned and nothing about it has been proven yet.
But wait, Dun-Dun-Duuuunnn! I just used NEW words in those definitions that we have not defined.

"exist": have objective reality or being.
“direct” control the operations of; manage or govern
“Mind”: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences
“Toward”:  in the direction of.

Etc… ad nauseam

“Ad nauseam”: referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.

Annnnnnnddd this is where I’m out.

All I wanted was to begin the discussion on an even paying field but your burning desire to assume your beliefs as the starting point will not allow this to happen. So I’m done with this one sided discussion as you will never admit that your beliefs don’t take priority over everyone else’s.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2014, 11:07:50 PM »
Annnnnnnddd this is where I’m out.

All I wanted was to begin the discussion on an even paying field but your burning desire to assume your beliefs as the starting point will not allow this to happen. So I’m done with this one sided discussion as you will never admit that your beliefs don’t take priority over everyone else’s.

We agree that the statement "I exist" is the true starting point of any intellectually honest world view. "I exist" is the the true axiom, beyond that there are many assumptions and assertions and arguments that could be made based on evidence and observations etc, but nothing we know can be known more certain than the sentence, "I exist." It is truly the only absolute certainty we can ever have. Therefore, any world view which posits that "i am an illusion" or "I don't exist" such as Materialism which states that only Material objects exist, is instantaneously highly suspect. The evidence in support of such a claim should be scrutinized as hard as any other wild claim.

The point I want to get across is that Materialism is not an unquestionable self-evident truth that should just be taken as a given. It is only an assumption no different than any other, and bares the full weight of the burden of proof just like any other positive assertion about reality. This is a point that most Atheists never either spend the time to discover, or have the intellectual honesty to admit.

If we can agree on at least this, I consider my goal accomplished. What you do from there with regards to your own personal world view is entirely up to you. But at least you will have solid foundation from which to begin building.

Peace & Love
CASPAROV
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2014, 12:20:25 AM »
That is the problem with your assertions, they have no solid foundations. Objective reality is a fact because it doesn't go away no matter what, but your mind does when you are unconscious. And it is also effected by a hard bump on your head or from psychoactive drugs, even ones produced by your physical body.  :wall: Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2014, 10:56:17 AM »
I consider my goal accomplished.

You dishonest fucking lying piece of shit. You have proved NOTHING, all berati wanted was to start the discussion on even footing and you couldn't even manage that without trying to insert your bullshit in the fucking ground floor BEFORE any evidence is presented. And NOW you have the unmitigated balls to attempt to strut as if you proved a fucking thing, aside from you being a dishonest fucking lying piece of retarded shit?

Don't bother responding to this as I have finally had enough of your stupidity attempting to be dressed up as intelligent discourse. Welcome to ignore retard.
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2014, 10:58:26 AM »
You dishonest fucking lying piece of shit. You have proved NOTHING, all berati wanted was to start the discussion on even footing and you couldn't even manage that without trying to insert your bullshit in the fucking ground floor BEFORE any evidence is presented. And NOW you have the unmitigated balls to attempt to strut as if you proved a fucking thing, aside from you being a dishonest fucking lying piece of retarded shit?

Don't bother responding to this as I have finally had enough of your stupidity attempting to be dressed up as intelligent discourse. Welcome to ignore retard.

Join the club. Had enough of this pompous blowhard days ago.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2014, 01:11:33 PM »
The point I want to get across is that Materialism is not an unquestionable self-evident truth that should just be taken as a given. It is only an assumption no different than any other, and bares the full weight of the burden of proof just like any other positive assertion about reality. This is a point that most Atheists never either spend the time to discover, or have the intellectual honesty to admit.
How completely dishonest of you!
I am the one who was insisting that NO philosophical position be assumed as more likely just because we exist. I am the one who has asked you repeatedly not to insert your belief as the unquestionable self-evident truth just to be taken as given.
You, on the other hand only had this to say
Quote
"You seem to be suggesting that all of these possibilities are equally as likely, but this does not follow. Some explain the data better than others, some fit the evidence better than others, some are just outright ridiculous assertions, they are not all equally as likely."

And now you have the gall to claim you are the honest one who's only desire was to start the discussion on even ground when it was me who very VERY  patiently spent far to many posts showing you why you can't place your belief ahead of everyone else's just because we agree we exist!!

While I actually argued in favor of keeping you here I can no longer stand to have your outright lies and deceptions rubbed in my face.

I will ask the powers that be here to review this last post of yours as it is way beyond the borders of decency and I don't believe this type of ignorant and deceptive behavior should be tolerated.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."