|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 8:27:56 GMT
There are much better facts that prove materialism is simply wishful thinking. But to bring them up here makes the materialists cry and whine and just reject and deny for absolutely no reason other than their wishful thinking.
It's tougher for most people born after about 1975 or so, to realize that they're verbs instead of nouns. Ancient people obviously realized this.
Today, children are thrust into materialism from day one, or most of them are. By age two, the child today is inundated with identification in noun form.
For baby boomers, it wasn't unusual for us to not even be told what a mirror was before we were in the second or third grade. We weren't shown our toes and fingers and told what they were until we were in the first grade. It was a more natural state of affairs for self identification.
Putting oneself in the lives of ancient people, one must realize that identification in noun form is very recent in an anthropological view in the History of Homo Sapiens.
How does this relate to "materialism"? First, it explains the need for people to believe in the religion of Materialism, for it is the number one religion of Mankind. It makes people feel safe and secure in what they learn, in their culture.
Second, understanding the verb reality of existence, one realizes that as a verb, you are "meter reading", not the meter. Proof of this is in the brain itself. Studies show that whatever thought is going through your brain, there is never just one area in action. There's always two or more places in the brain at work. This is your cognition. So, your cognition isn't material. That much is proven. But this scares people, as we will see by the very wishful thinkers I spoke of who will deny this in the thread. To be non material makes people feel they have less control. It's a "safe world" of atoms and molecules.
However, since the equation of Einstein involving mass, energy, and gravity means that one of the three is simply a mathematical result of the other two, then only the other two actually "exist". Which one is simply the result? We can eliminate Gravity since it is constant in the relationship, just as pi is constant. So it is either energy or mass that is simply a mathematical abstraction in reality. Since energy is more like the verb than mass, it's most logical that Energy is the real portion of the equation.
There are many other facts that make Materialism a pipe dream. The feeble attempts to explain the Universe, for instance. First, it is "everything", and then the feeble minded bureaucratic members of Donald Trump Academia insist that the Universe is expanding. So there is "empty space". And there is empty space no matter what.
Once the hot shots thought particles we could see were the prime ingredient of matter. Then it became atoms, then broken down into protons, electrons, and neutrons, and then quarks and electrons, and it will never cease to be broken down into something smaller. It's a feeble attempt to explain reality by going down a maze for fools.
Since there is the fact of the confusing maze that never ends, there is the fact that there are laws of Physics, then only the most retarded mind would think there isn't a cognitive force at work to confuse humans, and perhaps all life. Laws don't write themselves. Einstein didn't make the law of relativity. Newton didn't make the laws of motion. They "discovered" these laws. Chaos cannot produce laws, and only the most deluded and out of control moron can think Chaos can create laws.
Given all this, Materialism is the lie by which the demonic cognitive entities can exercise the most control, and keep the feeble minds running circles in their maze.
All of which will be certified by the feeble minds who will dispute this post. Ironic that they will prove my point and still whine some incoherent babbling as usual. We've already seen their incoherent babbling in this thread. There just aren't many minds on this board that compare to mine. Sure, Vegas, Cody, Erjen, Maya, Arlon, Allaby,Hey, and a few others have powers of reason, and I suspect the OP has the power of reason, but over half of the people here are the opposite, incapable of being anything but sheep.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 28, 2018 9:34:14 GMT
The argument we got in Philosophy of Religion class was that the three basic types of religious thought are
Theism --there is a universe created by God, nothing beyond God
Secularism- there is a universe and nothing beyond universe
Mysticism - there may be a universe and it may have been created by a god or gods, but beyond both would be something undefined-mystery and it can never be known-because any concrete aspects given to it can be questioned or doubted like universe or God. How can something absolute be subject to doubts?
So by that view, one can never be 100% sure that reality is real. There is always the possibility of doubt.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 28, 2018 11:47:48 GMT
The utility of a definition can be enhanced by making clear what is not included. By your definition who is not a materialist? Anyone who thinks have have souls, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 28, 2018 11:55:52 GMT
There are much better facts that prove materialism is simply wishful thinking. But to bring them up here makes the materialists cry and whine and just reject and deny for absolutely no reason other than their wishful thinking. Actually, the reason why you won't mention these secret "facts" is that they don't exist and you are just babbling. The vast majority of the human race are not materialists, cupcake. Excuse me, goofy, but this proves that cognition absolutely is material. That cognition involves potentially hundreds of different material activities does not mean it isn't material. Patterns exist in our region of the universe. People write the laws which describe those patterns.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 12:16:12 GMT
Not really. Materialism as far as I know says nothing about all matter having to be the same to begin with, so it's a rather silly argument. In order for something to be matter it must have some property or properties, no? I wonder. Do the "properties" of matter themselves qualify as matter?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 17:52:14 GMT
There are much better facts that prove materialism is simply wishful thinking. But to bring them up here makes the materialists cry and whine and just reject and deny for absolutely no reason other than their wishful thinking. Actually, the reason why you won't mention these secret "facts" is that they don't exist and you are just babbling. The vast majority of the human race are not materialists, cupcake. Excuse me, goofy, but this proves that cognition absolutely is material. That cognition involves potentially hundreds of different material activities does not mean it isn't material. Patterns exist in our region of the universe. People write the laws which describe those patterns.
Thank you for whining and babbling and proving my point. The vast majority of the human race are materialists. Most don't know their materialistic religion is a religion, because they're told it's not. It is, though, by any definition. The study showing more than one area of the brain at work proves that cognition isn't material. You can babble and whine all you want, but you lose the logic and Math part here. Patterns in our region of the Universe proves there is no Chaos, but that a cognitive force is at work. Of course, Vegas and the mob supports you. They want people to think that the dealer getting 20 and 21 in 30 straight deals and dealing you junk is not "rigged". The lie that things are random is what keeps the ignorant masses, since it gives them false hope. But thank you for whining and babbling and proving my point, as I predicted the feeblest minded sheep here would. No offense.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 28, 2018 18:02:48 GMT
The vast majority of the human race are materialists. Most don't know their materialistic religion is a religion, because they're told it's not. It is, though, by any definition. Every poll in almost every country shows majority belief in a god or some form of the supernatural. That means materialists are a minority everywhere, fuckwit. No, it shows that cognition is material, shit for brains. That is what cognition being material looks like. You can babble and whine all you want, but you lose the logic and science part here. It proves nothing of the kind, shit for brains.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 28, 2018 19:56:28 GMT
Right but the argument isnt saying "Be open-minded about atoms not being fundamental" its saying "Believe atoms are not solely fundamental" I'd put it more like this: Materialism = "Just go with whatever the best, current physics is saying about the ultimate constitution of the universe."*
*"And if history is any guide, don't get hung up on or too attached to any particular model."
How would that debunk the argument against the idea atoms are everywhere?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 28, 2018 19:59:20 GMT
I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms. Not sure why such an argument would be needed. We already know of many things which are not made of atoms. It's been common knowledge for a hundred years or more. Protons, for instance, are not made of atoms. Huh? There are a large variety of physical materials. But all of them are made up of the same constituent parts. If you're talking about physical materials, they are all made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Or more fundamentally, of quarks and electrons. But I don't get why you'd think that any of this is an argument against materialism. Let's grant that there turns out to be, oh, say a billion different fundamental types of matter. Okay... how does that argue against materialism? I should of been clearer, I meant that either everything composes atoms or is composed by atoms. "There are a large variety of physical materials. But all of them are made up of the same constituent parts." I'm not sure what your point is there. "Let's grant that there turns out to be, oh, say a billion different fundamental types of matter. Okay... how does that argue against materialism?" I don't think I ever said that did disprove materialism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 20:40:05 GMT
"Let's grant that there turns out to be, oh, say a billion different fundamental types of matter. Okay... how does that argue against materialism?" I don't think I ever said that did disprove materialism You said "So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true" Perhaps I misunderstood you or was unclear myself? You appear to be saying there that if there is a wide variety of basic building blocks in the universe then this means materialism is not true. I don't understand that argument. Why does a plethora of basic building blocks in the universe mean materialism is not true? As best I know, materialism makes no claim about how many basic building blocks there must be in the universe.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 23:20:25 GMT
The vast majority of the human race are materialists. Most don't know their materialistic religion is a religion, because they're told it's not. It is, though, by any definition. Every poll in almost every country shows majority belief in a god or some form of the supernatural. That means materialists are a minority everywhere, fuckwit. No, it shows that cognition is material, shit for brains. That is what cognition being material looks like. You can babble and whine all you want, but you lose the logic and science part here. It proves nothing of the kind, shit for brains.
The difference between my reading of the data and your reading is that I keep an open mind, and look for truth, and take what comes. You simply reject reality. My only objective is the objective reading and understanding of Reality. Your only motivation is to maintain whatever occurs proves your narrow minded view, even when it proves the opposite. When one activity the person does is shown as activity in points 1 and 2 of the brain, another one in points 1, 4, and 7, another in points 2, 32, and 41, another in points 12, 14, and 83, then it's obvious that the soul or cognizance is not material, and is reading different points. You have an aversion to reality and facts unless it fits in with your biased view. Hopefully, you never get on a jury deciding someone's fate. You clearly decide that if the victim is seen in Detroit at 11 AM EST on 11-20-18, and that is verified by scientific evidence, you would claim he couldn't have been killed there, because you decide he was materially in Oakland at that very same instant, despite the evidence. It's right there, proof, and you try to claim the proof says the opposite of what it says. You are either insane or lying or a moron. You have three choices, or a combination of those choices. No offense. Oh, did mean Styx make you cry home to your mommy? Me sorry.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 28, 2018 23:45:13 GMT
Every poll in almost every country shows majority belief in a god or some form of the supernatural. That means materialists are a minority everywhere, fuckwit. No, it shows that cognition is material, shit for brains. That is what cognition being material looks like. You can babble and whine all you want, but you lose the logic and science part here. It proves nothing of the kind, shit for brains.
The difference between my reading of the data and your reading is that I keep an open mind, and look for truth, and take what comes. You simply reject reality. My only objective is the objective reading and understanding of Reality. Your only motivation is to maintain whatever occurs proves your narrow minded view, even when it proves the opposite. When one activity the person does is shown as activity in points 1 and 2 of the brain, another one in points 1, 4, and 7, another in points 2, 32, and 41, another in points 12, 14, and 83, then it's obvious that the soul or cognizance is not material, and is reading different points. You have an aversion to reality and facts unless it fits in with your biased view. Hopefully, you never get on a jury deciding someone's fate. You clearly decide that if the victim is seen in Detroit at 11 AM EST on 11-20-18, and that is verified by scientific evidence, you would claim he couldn't have been killed there, because you decide he was materially in Oakland at that very same instant, despite the evidence. It's right there, proof, and you try to claim the proof says the opposite of what it says. You are either insane or lying or a moron. You have three choices, or a combination of those choices. No offense. Oh, did mean Styx make you cry home to your mommy? Me sorry. ^ ^ conclusive proof that you live in 'opposites world'. 'Reality' is materialism with no room for delusion and wishful thinking about 'souls' and 'devils' and other nonsensical fantasies that you delight in.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 29, 2018 11:18:55 GMT
How would that debunk the argument against the idea atoms are everywhere? I would say that modern science gives no indication that atoms are everywhere and encourage anyone who believes that to look up the concept of a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 29, 2018 11:32:30 GMT
The difference between my reading of the data and your reading is that I keep an open mind, and look for truth, and take what comes. Actually, you do the exact opposite. Reading your posts, more than one of us wonders about your mental health. Not joking. If one were to monitor your computer and someone else's computer performing the same activity in Excel, one would see activities in different locations in each computer even if both of the computers were the same models and builds. This would be true for both the CPU and memory systems, and true for the same computer at time T versus time T + 3. Are you saying this proves that computers operate according to magical non-physical soul magic? Hmmm? Because that's the exact "logic" you are using for brains, fuckwit.
Brains process information in different places because different parts of your brain are adapted to work on different kinds of information. Some parts work on color, others work on edge detection, others at higher levels distinguish between faces and objects. And so on. In each case, physical communications between individual neurons and networks of neurons can be observed and traced. This is not a challenge to materialism, but rather what a materialist view of consciousness looks like.
You don't know any of this because you are too busy fantasizing about how smart you are to actually bother studying the science so you learn something.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 29, 2018 17:55:54 GMT
Styx is a twat in his religious ramblings and ruminations, but how is cognition 'absolutely' material? Please define cognition for me as an absolute, and how it is material form. If you do this cupcake, I won't think you are half the twat that Styx is. We both know that if I link to the standard article I always link to when asked about the modern consensus in cognitive neuroscience regarding consciousness (which is, uncontroversially, that it is a physical function of brain activity, nothing more), you a) wouldn't bother reading it; b) wouldn't understand it anyway; and c) would go off as you usually do about the meaninglessness/arrogance of scholarship and book learning since you know everything in your fucking heart already. So I won't bother. Actually, I think I offered it up to you a few months ago already and you just blew it off, as you blow off all science which contradicts your idiotic New Age bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 29, 2018 20:05:47 GMT
The difference between my reading of the data and your reading is that I keep an open mind, and look for truth, and take what comes. Actually, you do the exact opposite. Reading your posts, more than one of us wonders about your mental health. Not joking. If one were to monitor your computer and someone else's computer performing the same activity in Excel, one would see activities in different locations in each computer even if both of the computers were the same models and builds. This would be true for both the CPU and memory systems, and true for the same computer at time T versus time T + 3. Are you saying this proves that computers operate according to magical non-physical soul magic? Hmmm? Because that's the exact "logic" you are using for brains, fuckwit.
Brains process information in different places because different parts of your brain are adapted to work on different kinds of information. Some parts work on color, others work on edge detection, others at higher levels distinguish between faces and objects. And so on. In each case, physical communications between individual neurons and networks of neurons can be observed and traced. This is not a challenge to materialism, but rather what a materialist view of consciousness looks like.
You don't know any of this because you are too busy fantasizing about how smart you are to actually bother studying the science so you learn something.
Your incoherent babbling only proves you either flunked Geometry, never took it, or you cheated to get by. It's been over 40 years since I aced Geometry, and the precise terms I may not have a handle on, but the concept I do, because it's based on the simplest logic. You even admit I'm write in your paragraph, and yet you deny it, proof again that you are a troll after the coveted "most retarded" award. The other retards envy you. Different parts of the brain react, but never a single one, and when an identical process is repeated, it can even be other parts of the brain, but always more than one. There is no "special place" where it's always at. You made a mistake bringing up neurons to me, since I was in the Physical Therapy Assistant program, and know exactly what they are, while you simply go by whatever you cherry pick on the internet, and there's plenty of morons like yourself who hit the "cherry pick" spots over and over to misinform out of a desire to create your own reality. Good luck with really changing reality to fit your pipe dream. Perfect example of being a moron, to try to change a definition back and forth, to fit into your pipe dream. You not only want to keep changing cognition back and forth from a mechanical self awareness to soul and back again, whenever it fits your delusionary state of no logic, but you want to change the definition of materialism back and forth. Your knowledge of computers is something you're trying to lean on to hide your ignorance of logic, or your desire to control (more likely your desire to control others is why you lie). Whatever the computer does, if it does indeed never amass all the data in one central location, then it means it is not in a material location. This is where your total ignorance of Math and Geometry comes in. Either you're an illiterate moron, or a deluded liar who believes his own fantasies. The set of "materials that fit in materialism", you can call it "matter" or whatever you like, whatever it is, it's in that set. It is what it is. I've no doubt you'll rename it and then redefine it back and forth to suit your pipe dream, but there's no logic in it. If you don't know that, you are a retard. If indeed the computer's central meter reader is outside of your set of "materials that fit in materialism", then it is outside that circle. That's where you are trying to hide behind computer knowledge. It doesn't work, because if you are telling the truth, it only means it lies outside of that circle. We don't know if there's "cognition" in it. We do know, each of us, that we each have cognition, that we are reading the meter of the brain and that includes the neurons and axons in their dynamics. A person who is paralyzed may not read neurons at all. Oops, sorry to prove you're a retard, but you did that on your own, didn't you? Glad you agree. We don't know if the computer has "cognition". If it does, then there is a magic. If not, then there isn't. Just being outside the circle of Set A (materials that fit in materialism) doesn't mean it is in Set B of "soul", which whether you call it "cognition" or whatever, it is the "meter reader" of the dynamics of the brain. The computer reading of the information has some central locale. There's the world wide web, for instance. It isn't "material". That doesn't mean it has a "soul" or "cognition". Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If it does have an entity reading the meter, then that is "magic". If not, it doesn't. In either case, it may intersect with Set B, it may be totally inside it, or it may be totally outside of it. That's Geometry, which you either flunked, because you're too retarded to understand logic, or which you just reject, because of your fantasies. I don't blame you for the fantasies. Billions of "meter readers" live even today, enslaved by the materials caging them, and it would surely take the biggest moron ever to think billions of beings are in prisons and there wasn't some cruel entity that put them there and kept them there by some system. But thank you for proving my point, but you have competition on this board for the "biggest retard award". Lots of it. No one can be more retarded than you are, sure, but many will tie you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 29, 2018 20:57:33 GMT
Actually, you do the exact opposite. Reading your posts, more than one of us wonders about your mental health. Not joking. If one were to monitor your computer and someone else's computer performing the same activity in Excel, one would see activities in different locations in each computer even if both of the computers were the same models and builds. This would be true for both the CPU and memory systems, and true for the same computer at time T versus time T + 3. Are you saying this proves that computers operate according to magical non-physical soul magic? Hmmm? Because that's the exact "logic" you are using for brains, fuckwit.
Brains process information in different places because different parts of your brain are adapted to work on different kinds of information. Some parts work on color, others work on edge detection, others at higher levels distinguish between faces and objects. And so on. In each case, physical communications between individual neurons and networks of neurons can be observed and traced. This is not a challenge to materialism, but rather what a materialist view of consciousness looks like.
You don't know any of this because you are too busy fantasizing about how smart you are to actually bother studying the science so you learn something.
Your incoherent babbling only proves you either flunked Geometry, never took it, or you cheated to get by. It's been over 40 years since I aced Geometry, and the precise terms I may not have a handle on, but the concept I do, because it's based on the simplest logic. You even admit I'm write in your paragraph, and yet you deny it, proof again that you are a troll after the coveted "most retarded" award. The other retards envy you. Different parts of the brain react, but never a single one, and when an identical process is repeated, it can even be other parts of the brain, but always more than one. There is no "special place" where it's always at. You made a mistake bringing up neurons to me, since I was in the Physical Therapy Assistant program, and know exactly what they are, while you simply go by whatever you cherry pick on the internet, and there's plenty of morons like yourself who hit the "cherry pick" spots over and over to misinform out of a desire to create your own reality. Good luck with really changing reality to fit your pipe dream. Perfect example of being a moron, to try to change a definition back and forth, to fit into your pipe dream. You not only want to keep changing cognition back and forth from a mechanical self awareness to soul and back again, whenever it fits your delusionary state of no logic, but you want to change the definition of materialism back and forth. Your knowledge of computers is something you're trying to lean on to hide your ignorance of logic, or your desire to control (more likely your desire to control others is why you lie). Whatever the computer does, if it does indeed never amass all the data in one central location, then it means it is not in a material location. This is where your total ignorance of Math and Geometry comes in. Either you're an illiterate moron, or a deluded liar who believes his own fantasies. The set of "materials that fit in materialism", you can call it "matter" or whatever you like, whatever it is, it's in that set. It is what it is. I've no doubt you'll rename it and then redefine it back and forth to suit your pipe dream, but there's no logic in it. If you don't know that, you are a retard. If indeed the computer's central meter reader is outside of your set of "materials that fit in materialism", then it is outside that circle. That's where you are trying to hide behind computer knowledge. It doesn't work, because if you are telling the truth, it only means it lies outside of that circle. We don't know if there's "cognition" in it. We do know, each of us, that we each have cognition, that we are reading the meter of the brain and that includes the neurons and axons in their dynamics. A person who is paralyzed may not read neurons at all. Oops, sorry to prove you're a retard, but you did that on your own, didn't you? Glad you agree. We don't know if the computer has "cognition". If it does, then there is a magic. If not, then there isn't. Just being outside the circle of Set A (materials that fit in materialism) doesn't mean it is in Set B of "soul", which whether you call it "cognition" or whatever, it is the "meter reader" of the dynamics of the brain. The computer reading of the information has some central locale. There's the world wide web, for instance. It isn't "material". That doesn't mean it has a "soul" or "cognition". Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If it does have an entity reading the meter, then that is "magic". If not, it doesn't. In either case, it may intersect with Set B, it may be totally inside it, or it may be totally outside of it. That's Geometry, which you either flunked, because you're too retarded to understand logic, or which you just reject, because of your fantasies. I don't blame you for the fantasies. Billions of "meter readers" live even today, enslaved by the materials caging them, and it would surely take the biggest moron ever to think billions of beings are in prisons and there wasn't some cruel entity that put them there and kept them there by some system. But thank you for proving my point, but you have competition on this board for the "biggest retard award". Lots of it. No one can be more retarded than you are, sure, but many will tie you. WOW! Congratulations. That is THE BEST (and longest and most confused) self projection of your own frailties onto someone else I have ever seen. Well done you. You are a true anti-intellectual champion.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2018 13:50:32 GMT
WOW! Congratulations. That is THE BEST (and longest and most confused) self projection of your own frailties onto someone else I have ever seen. Well done you. You are a true anti-intellectual champion. I know. It isn't even worth it replying to this dolt because that post was so incoherent and ignorant that it kind of takes care of itself just by being there.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2018 13:52:23 GMT
I want you to explain it to me, not link it, how is cognition 'absolutely' material?
No, you don't want anything explained to you. You just want to believe your ignorant intuitions. Understanding how cognition is material requires a lot of reading of scientific literature and paying attention to details that would utterly bore someone as intellectually lazy and light-weight as you.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 30, 2018 16:34:28 GMT
We both know that if I link to the standard article I always link to when asked about the modern consensus in cognitive neuroscience regarding consciousness (which is, uncontroversially, that it is a physical function of brain activity, nothing more), you a) wouldn't bother reading it; b) wouldn't understand it anyway; and c) would go off as you usually do about the meaninglessness/arrogance of scholarship and book learning since you know everything in your fucking heart already. So I won't bother. Actually, I think I offered it up to you a few months ago already and you just blew it off, as you blow off all science which contradicts your idiotic New Age bullshit. As I thought, nothing has changed, you are still pompous and arrogant who wants to prove how intellectually superior he is to impress upon others what he only THINKS he knows.
I want you to explain it to me, not link it, how is cognition 'absolutely' material?
Is that humans being the smartest animal on the planet also having the largest brains a mere coincidence?
|
|