Materialism

[Stranger]

are you responding to me or Bluehillside. when I said ''No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.'' he said and I quote
...
I have stated why I disagree with your objections. Now let us see you put your money where your mouth is and take him to task over his belief in the necessary entity.

Blatant evasion noted. Where have you ever answer any of the questions I just put to you? Blue appears to have answered for himself.

Your turn to address my questions, here they are again:-

Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?

How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?

What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?

What is necessary about your god-concept?

What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blatant evasion noted. Where have you ever answer any of the questions I just put to you? Blue appears to have answered for himself.

Then we must question your understanding of the word ''answer''.

[Stranger]

Then we must question your understanding of the word ''answer''.

Laughable. Okay, where is it you think you've got anywhere near answering any of them?

You seem to have spent most of the other thread either ignoring them or repeatedly evading any direct answers at all.

[Sriram]

The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'.  He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.

The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!

[Gordon]

The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'.  He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.

The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!

He is being vilified because he produces pseudoscience, and while that may take some effort I would describe it as 'meaningless' and not 'meaningful': more laughable that laudable.

[Stranger]

The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'.

It's not ridiculous at all, in fact it's what the evidence is telling us. Even many of the more radical ideas about conciousness that you have previously referred to (IIT and Orch OR, for example), would agree that it is the brain that produces the fully functioning mind.

He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.

He's being vilified because he's a known charlatan who peddles pseudoscience.

He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!

Science doesn't have 'narrow confines' unless you mean that it actually has to be science, rather than wishful thinking or vague, baseless nonsense like "morphic resonance" which seems to mean whatever suits him at the time.

The problem, as always with you, is that you don't care what the source is, how credible the idea is, or even how closely it fits to what you, obviously and desperately, want to be true, if you even think it hints it that direction, you'll jump on it and promote it here.

You're taking the exact opposite of the scientific approach by deciding what's true first and then going to look for anything at all that you think might support it. This is exactly the same approach we get from YECs.

[Bramble]

The point is that Sheldrake is trying to understand Consciousness and the mind without sticking to the ridiculous notion that 'the brain generates the mind and consciousness'.  He is being vilified for that meaningful effort which many others (I have named above) also are attempting.

The video linked in the OP is quite good (though long). He is just trying to go beyond the narrow confines of mainstream science. Very laudable!

I actually watched the video and found some of it quite interesting, such as his view that materialism was dreadfully ‘depressing’. Presumably this might go some way to explain his apparent need to reject it, leading to such fancies as his belief that the sun is conscious. I’ve no idea what he actually meant by that and he didn’t elaborate, but it does give me pause to wonder why it would actually matter to him one way or the other.

Perhaps a conscious sun would help to re-enchant a universe that seems to have lost its sparkle, but if so then who exactly has disenchanted everything? It seems to me that the version of materialism Sheldrake seeks to escape is precisely the child of dualism, which he now embraces  as his salvation.

Once the world has been split by this peculiar creed and all value assigned to the experiencing consciousness then the material stuff left behind is by definition without value. If one is a follower of this wholly unnecessary corruption of thought then I can certainly sympathise with Sheldrake. Materialism must seem awfully dreary.

[Sriram]

The ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism posit that the whole universe and everything in it, is conscious.

[Bramble]

The ideas of panpsychism and cosmopsychism posit that the whole universe and everything in it, is conscious.

I am aware of that. What I don't understand is what it actually means. In normal usage, to be conscious of something means to be aware of it. I suppose one could stretch the idea of awareness to include any any reactivity to ones surroundings, such as a towel flapping on the washing line when the wind blows, but to do so would render the normal usage pretty much redundant and to what end would one wish to do that? In what meaningful sense is the towel conscious? Does it perhaps enjoy the warmth of the sun's rays, or maybe the sun and the towel take the opportunity to have a little chat about the funny ideas that humans entertain. As for 'the whole universe', is this conscious because it includes conscious beings or in some other sense? Is it, for example, a being in its own right with its own thoughts, feelings, plans and so forth? And while we're at it, is the belief that everything is conscious a kind of monism or some version of dualism? If matter is itself conscious then what is the beef with materialism and how can consciousness be non-material? But if matter needs to interact with some non-material species of consciousness in order to exhibit conscious traits how can we say everything is conscious? Just asking.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

It can be seen that people in different countries come up with similar ideas (philosophical or scientific) at around the same time (without any communication between them).  We can also see that learning is faster in later generations in certain areas.  Even very young children take to mobile phones and stuff very fast as compared to earlier generations.   

Even evolution has been seen as 'learning'.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534715002931

*************

Until recently such cognitive learning seemed irrelevant to the ‘uninformed’ process of evolution. In our opinion, however, new results formally linking evolutionary processes to the principles of learning might provide solutions to several evolutionary puzzles – the evolution of evolvability, the evolution of ecological organisation, and evolutionary transitions in individuality. If so, the ability for evolution to learn might explain how it produces such apparently intelligent designs.

*************
 
These things could be due to some sort of an influence getting passed on down the generation and even laterally influencing similar minded people.  What Sheldrake is talking about could have a basis, though it could be more philosophical conjecture than a scientific proposal.

[Bramble]

So Sriram, shall I take it that you can make no more sense of panpsychism than I can but just don't want to admit it?

[Sriram]

You can ask more questions than I can answer....

[ProfessorDavey]

Until recently such cognitive learning seemed irrelevant to the ‘uninformed’ process of evolution.

Learning is a hugely beneficial evolutionary trait. While the evolutionary process may well be uninformed, as it were, if the ability to learn is evolutionarily beneficial to survival (it is), then it will be selected for within the context of natural selection. We should therefore, expect successive generations to become more successful in their ability to learn and their ability to teach.

[Sriram]

Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help.  You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.

Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process.  This shows Intelligence and purpose. The process by which these things happen also requires more than just DNA. 

What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of  mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.

[Stranger]

Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help.  You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.

There is no issue to circumvent - and no matter how often you repeat the ignorant drivel about natural selection being a metaphor, it will not change the fact that it is a real, observable, and computable process.

Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process.  This shows Intelligence and purpose.

No, it doesn't. You brought up this opinion paper before and the whole idea is based on, you guessed it, natural selection. From the concluding remarks section (of the full paper):

"[Learning theory] expands what we think evolution is capable of. In particular, it shows that via the incremental evolution of developmental, ecological, or reproductive organisations natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem solving."

What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of  mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.

No Sriram, every wingnut who writes something you like isn't the next Galileo. Sheldrake has given up doing science and decided to sell books on new age woo instead. The swiftness is just due to him being a relatively well known wingnut almost as notorious as Deepak Chopra.

The problem, as always, is you don't know or seem to care how credible the sources you latch on to are, as long as you think they are saying something you like. As I said before, that the exact opposite of rational inquiry and science, because you've started by assuming the conclusion. Your mind is completely closed to any other possibilities at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Merely dumping everything on a nebulous 'evolution' and on a metaphoric natural selection doesn't help.  You are merely trying to circumvent the issue.

Evolution might be 'nebulous' but it is also really retailed, with all sorts of traits having evolutionary advantage - and that, of course, includes the ability to learn.

Fact is that there is a real process of reactive adaptation and learning inbuilt into the evolutionary process.  This shows Intelligence and purpose. The process by which these things happen also requires more than just DNA.

Of course the process by which evolution occurs requires more than just DNA. DNA is merely a code for protein production - evolution requires the proteins produced fro DNA and their various interactions with other elements of living systems and of the broader environment. But evolution also requires traits to be hereditary - i.e. passed on from generation to generation, and that is where the code (DNA) is really important. And although there are other hereditary elements, e.g. driven by epigenetics, those themselves are the product of the action of proteins again coded for by DNA. 

What Sheldrake is doing is to attempt an explanation using the idea of Fields and collective consciousness. It may be philosophical conjecture. Nothing wrong with that given the amount of conjecture that has become commonplace in science. The contempt and swiftness with which he is dismissed however shows fear and discomfort on the part of  mainstream scientists similar to the Church condemning Galileo.

Wrong way around Sriran - the kind of unevidenced pseudoscience that Sheldrake promulgates is akin to the ignorance of the church was asserting, without evidence, that the earth was at the centre of the solar system (cos they needed people to be oh-so important for their religion) - observation, the scientific process and evidence proved them wrong. Science happily accepts when it is wrong and changes its view - but it does so on the basis of evidence not hand-waving conjecture. So if Sheldrake provides credible evidence to back up his conjectures then the scientific community will move their thinking in alignment (that's what science and scientists do), but if he doesn't provide any evidence then his assertions will be, quite rightly, dismissed.

[Sriram]

Its all very well to keep talking of evidence. But as discussed earlier, evidence is not always measurable in nature. Everything is not Physics.

Secondly, attitude makes a lot of difference.....the two boxes syndrome. Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.

[ProfessorDavey]

Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.

Potentially true, but the scientific method keeps them honest as it needs to be objective and reproducible so is specifically designed to remove the subjective biases of individual scientists. The same isn't true within 'faith'/'belief'-based prejudices and biases where there is no attempt to us a methods to remove bias and prejudice - indeed most religious systems are based on the notion of embedding and compounding faith-based bias and prejudice.

[jeremyp]

Its all very well to keep talking of evidence. But as discussed earlier, evidence is not always measurable in nature. Everything is not Physics.

The problem is that you haven't got any evidence, measurable or not. You just keep making bald assertions and your only defence when questioned is to pretend that you are exempt from providing evidence for your point of view. Nobody else accepts that.

Scientists are as prone to prejudice and confirmation bias as anyone else and are as trapped in a belief system as anyone else.

Science is not though. Scientists may be wrong about things but science moves on without them.

[Sriram]

There is no science without scientists. All the limitations and biases inherent in scientists will have its effect on science. 'Science' can develop differently in different cultures.

In India, for example....Yoga and spirituality are seen as sciences. I am sure westerners have no clue how that can be so.

[jeremyp]

There is no science without scientists. All the limitations and biases inherent in scientists will have its effect on science.

But science is self correcting. It may set out down the wrong path but the evidence against it will build up to the point that it is corrected. Individual scientists may never change their opinions but the consensus moves with the evidence.

'Science' can develop differently in different cultures.

Science can't though.

In India, for example....Yoga and spirituality are seen as sciences.

Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings.

I am sure westerners have no clue how that can be so.

I'm sure that you (and I don't mean Indians, I mean you: Sriram) have no clue what science is.

[Sriram]

Science cannot be self correcting. That is nonsense. The direction in which scientists and their biases take it.....it will go.....till later generations adopt different attitudes and change its course. Science can never be independent of scientists and the tools they choose to construct. Attitude and perception are everything.


'Yoga is not a science. It doesn't tell us anything about how the World works and it is not supposed to. Spirituality is just feelings'.

See my point....!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I see where Sriram is coming from in the sense that science or the scientific method provides peer-reviewed demonstrable explanations using observed and tested information that scientists have investigated and collected about the physical and material world. If the scientists drive the process, their information is limited to what they get funding to investigate. 

So yes there are endless possibilities that the scientific method has not or is unable to investigate, but there is no reason to accept any of those possibilities as true or fact. They just remain possibilities. Some people's taste may incline them to live their lives as if those possibilities are true and other people's tastes may not.

Many of the principles of yoga came about through observation and testing of our physical bodies. In that sense parts of yoga can be included as part of science.

[Alan Burns]

Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?

How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?

What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?

What is necessary about your god-concept?

What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?

Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.
For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.

You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.

[Stranger]

Surely the answer to all these convoluted questions can be summed up by the simple fact that we exist.

No. They were questions addressed to Vlad's vague hand-waving attempts at producing an argument. Any convolution is a result of his incoherence.

For anything to exist there must be an ultimate source of existence.

All but meaningless. Stuff exists and is the way it is. We don't know why.

You may call this ultimate source of all existence "God".
Without it nothing would exist.

Inventing something, calling it the "ultimate source of existence" and then "God" (for no apparent reason), doesn't address the problem of why stuff exists and is the way it is because, whatever it is, it has to itself be part of what exists.

You've just invented something that would, if it exists, just add to the problem, not solve it.