At least you can learn, which is more than we can say for 90+ percent of the folks around here. ;-) — Terrapin Station

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. :fear:

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. — Noah Te Stroete

There can definitely be benefits to church/religion-based social life, especially if you live in particular locations where that dominates the way that people interact socially.

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. :fear: — Noah Te Stroete

So you were motivated by that, rather than a genuine search for truth? That's not a sacrifice that I could make. Nor is it even necessary.

There can definitely be benefits to church/religion-based social life, especially if you live in particular locations where that dominates the way that people interact socially. — Terrapin Station

I'd rather keep my principles. If it was that bad, I'd rather move. Besides, it's not like he's living in the Bible Belt.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in.

Let me help you a little bit here. It could be that this material world we experience is a creation of our collective subconsciousness, and so that it depends on each and everyone of us, and that it is our will that shapes it, rather than unchanging laws that don't depend on us. If you don't like materialism, nothing forces you to believe in it, only some people try to force you (for various reasons that depend on them) but you don't have to let them take over your mind.

Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. — leo

I could just as well say that I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually more fanciful. I could do this all day. We could just keep on trading characteristics with negative connotations, but it's not productive. It just shows your prejudice.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in.

Let me help you a little bit here. It could be that this material world we experience is a creation of our collective subconsciousness, and so that it depends on each and everyone of us, and that it is our will that shapes it, rather than unchanging laws that don't depend on us. If you don't like materialism, nothing forces you to believe in it, only some people try to force you (for various reasons that depend on them) but you don't have to let them take over your mind. — leo

I would hope that people aren't choosing philosophical stances based on whether they like them.

I could just as well say that I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually more fanciful. I could do this all day. We could just keep on trading characteristics with negative connotations, but it's not productive. It just shows your prejudice. — S

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded.

It is a good exercise to try to find the most basic building blocks of the Universe. Science has traced it back to Energy, but you are Speculating that Spirit or what I would call Consciousness is a more fundamental building block. I don't see how you make Energy from Consciousness, but it is a good Speculation. There's nothing wrong with Speculation. You don't need to have all the answers to have a Speculative Insight. Maybe just the thought that Energy and thus Matter are actually made out of Consciousness will inspire some other Mind to discover the answer. By the way, when it comes to Consciousness all we have is Speculation because nobody really has the first clue.

I don't see why I should spend my time and energy giving a detailed breakdown of your opening post. That would seem like an unfair working relationship: you submit a handful of uncritical thoughts, and I'm expected to give you a detailed breakdown of the flaws? Are you suggesting that you're incapable of reassessing your own thinking, given my feedback? — S

You took the time to write all of this when you didn't have to lol

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. — leo

A sample pool of just one is no basis to support such a judgement.

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary. — leo

Again, personal experience and speculation doesn't amount to much in the way of strong support.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded. — leo

There's also a long history of science failures, like flogiston, luminiferous aether, and the geocentric model, as well as a wealth of speculative ideas which failed to even meet the principles behind the scientific method. So what you deliberately characterise negatively with the term "narrow-minded" could actually amount to rightly standing by reasonable principles instead of compromising by lowering the standard. I'm open to anything which meets an epistemic standard worth it's salt, and not otherwise, and there's nothing wrong with that, in spite of your insinuations.

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded. — leo

It's not even clear to me what open or closed-minded would amount to in a context like this.

I would hope that people aren't choosing philosophical stances based on whether they like[/i[] them. — Terrapin Station

I happen to think that's precisely why they choose them. For instance there's something about physicalism that suits you that you don't find in other philosophies. What is it exactly I don't know, that depends on you. You might say it's truth, but you can't prove physicalism is true, so it's something else.

Sometimes it's simply indoctrination, we grow up being taught a physicalist world view and then that's all we can see, when the fear of authority is deeply ingrained we try to rationalize anything that goes against the authority. It can also be the idea that we can find the laws that govern the world, and we find safety in the idea that we know these laws. Or the idea that by knowing these laws we can become the masters of the world. Focusing on the physical has brought cars and the TV and the computer and people enjoy that, so when people focus on what matters to them in their daily life I suppose they're more likely to pick the philosophy that they see as responsible for having brought these things, even though these technologies could also have been created without adhering to physicalism.

A sample pool of just one is no basis to support such a judgement. — S

I'm not the only one to have claimed that, I do have first-hand experience however. You can use my personal report as a starting point to conduct further inquiry and see whether there is a statistically significant percentage of former materialists who call their former self as narrow-minded, or you can simply dismiss it because you don't like the idea or because you don't care.

There's also a long history of science failures, like flogiston, luminiferous aether, and the geocentric model, as well as a wealth of speculative ideas which failed to even meet the principles behind the scientific method. So what you deliberately characterise negatively with the term "narrow-minded" could actually amount to rightly standing by reasonable principles instead of compromising by lowering the standard. — S

I don't see how that addresses what I said, those "science failures" you mention were widely accepted as facts, as truth in their time, whereas someone who would have discussed ideas of 20th century physics back then would have been seen as fanciful or as a crank. And these "science failures" adhered to the "scientific method" just fine back then.

edit: double post

Physicalism cannot explain consciousness. S singles out my posts for some reason. He said I have a “God delusion.” I never argued for a particular god or implied that I know the nature of God. A delusion means having a false belief. This from someone who in other threads stated he had no beliefs about God one way or the other. Now he says it’s “delusion,” and says I don’t care about the truth. Weird.

I made a category error in my argument. I own that. I own that this line of thinking is purely speculative. So what? One cannot appeal to one’s subjective experiences in philosophy? Consciousness IS subjective, and materialism CANNOT explain consciousness as consciousness is by its nature a private domain. The scientific method cannot touch it. So, to completely disregard the only thing that I have certainty of, viz. my subjective experience (my consciousness) is patently absurd and hardly a disregard for the truth.

You took the time to write all of this when you didn't have to lol — khaled

I don't "have to" do anything. I chose to give him a piece of my mind, because shoddy thinking like that irks me into responding in that manner. And besides, he explicitly asked for criticism. Though I don't like spoonfeeding. I prefer it when people think for themselves. I gave him some pointers.

I'm not the only one to have claimed that, I do have first-hand experience however. You can use my personal report as a starting point to conduct further inquiry and see whether there is a statistically significant percentage of former materialists who call their former self as narrow-minded, or you can simply dismiss it because you don't like the idea or because you don't care. — leo

Yeah, funnily enough, I'm not going to go out and conduct a survey in an attempt to verify your opinion about materialists.

I don't see how that addresses what I said, those "science failures" you mention were widely accepted as facts, as truth in their time, whereas someone who would have discussed ideas of 20th century physics back then would have been seen as fanciful or as a crank. And these "science failures" adhered to the "scientific method" just fine back then. — leo

Obviously I'm not assessing those views from the perspective of someone at the time, otherwise my point wouldn't make any sense. I'm assessing them based on what we now know. The speculation in the opening post is comparable, in a sense. It resembles science, but is off track and weakly supported, if at all. As others have commented, it's based on a fairly common misperception about the meaning of terms and logical implications relating to the observer effect. I've seen it all before.

S singles out my posts for some reason. He said I have a “God delusion.” I never argued for a particular god or implied that I know the nature of God. A delusion means having a false belief. This from someone who in other threads stated he had no beliefs about God one way or the other. Now he says it’s “delusion,” and says I don’t care about the truth. Weird. — Noah Te Stroete

Delusion or misleading triviality? Take your pick, it's lose-lose. Regarding the latter, I refer you to my point about your toaster. What makes you think that petty wordplay is of significance? If that's what floats your boat, then good for you, but I see no reason to care.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. My toaster.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well. — Noah Te Stroete

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing.

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing. — Wallows

I will try to make that my last interaction with him.

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing. — Wallows

Spoken like a true ignoramus. And how much do you think you'll learn in an echo chamber?

Spoken like a true ignoramus. — S

A wallower.

And how much do you think you'll learn in an echo chamber? — S

I think, a lot of what goes on here is identity formation, where you seem to be constantly in dissonance or confusion that is protected/projected onto others.

A wallower. — Wallows

You're far too busy sticking your oar in here, there and everywhere to fit the description of a wallower.

I think, a lot of what goes on here is identity formation, where you seem to be constantly in dissonance or confusion that is protected/projected onto others. — Wallows

Well, Freud, the dissonance part is largely true. Dissonance being a lack of agreement or harmony between people or things. I don't come here to seek agreement or harmony. That would be boring. I often pass over in silence what seems agreeable, reasonable, and well-informed. Shoddy thinking is much more likely to get a reaction out of me, and I unapologetically don't hold back in my criticism. Why should I? I'm not stopping you from blocking me out. You're free to do and say what the heck you like, within the law of the land, as am I.

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about?

Obviously I'm not assessing those views from the perspective of someone at the time, otherwise my point wouldn't make any sense. I'm assessing them based on what we now know. The speculation in the opening post is comparable, in a sense. It resembles science, but is off track and weakly supported, if at all. As others have commented, it's based on a fairly common misperception about the meaning of terms and logical implications relating to the observer effect. — S

Well, back then you would have assessed relativity and quantum mechanics based on what we knew then, and you would have said something like "it resembles science, but is off track and weakly supported, if at all". Then it's very possible that ideas that seem to contradict what we know now or that seem absurd now will end up being in the future "what we know". Plenty of times in history people thought they knew better than those before them, and yet some decades or centuries later they were contradicted by other people who thought they knew better, and some decades or centuries later these were contradicted by some other people who thought they knew better, and so on.

Not to say there aren't misconceptions in what the OP said, and surely it doesn't help to use misconceptions in support of a speculative idea, but as a speculative idea I think it is worth exploring, rather than dismissing it right from the start as if we knew better, just because it seems to contradict "what we now know".

A speculative idea sometimes starts as an intuition, we don't really know where it's coming from, it's just floating there, we don't see how we could test it, but maybe if we discuss it and allow it to grow, something that we don't see yet will come out of it. The OP mentioned repeatedly that his mind works best through dialogue, that much of his thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue, that was an invitation to help that idea grow, but instead he was simply met with resistance and with attempts to nip it in the bud. That's why paradigms take time to change, because ideas that contradict the prevalent one are resisted and rejected, instead of being allowed to flourish. A speculative idea is a bit like a flower seed, we have to water it and let it grow if we want to see the flower that it can become.

I don't come here to seek agreement or harmony. That would be boring — S

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about? — S

Then what are you here for?

Well, back then... — leo

Yes, back then. And back in times before modern advances in healthcare, I might have been brushing my teeth with wine and having my blood let when ill. This is entirely beside the point.

Not to say there aren't misconceptions in what the OP said, and surely it doesn't help to use misconceptions in support of a speculative idea, but as a speculative idea I think it is worth exploring, rather than dismissing it right from the start as if we knew better, just because it seems to contradict "what we now know".

A speculative idea sometimes starts as an intuition, we don't really know where it's coming from, it's just floating there, we don't see how we could test it, but maybe if we discuss it and allow it to grow, something that we don't see yet will come out of it. The OP mentioned repeatedly that his mind works best through dialogue, that much of his thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue, that was an invitation to help that idea grow, but instead he was simply met with resistance and with attempts to nip it in the bud. That's why paradigms take time to change, because ideas that contradict the prevalent one are resisted and rejected, instead of being allowed to flourish. A speculative idea is a bit like a flower seed, we have to water it and let it grow if we want to see the flower that it can become. — leo

I don't do speculation, I do evidence based assessments in accordance with principles of reason. I consider the former bad philosophy. My response is not unreasonable. Philosophy is all about critical thinking skills, not, as some seem to think, sharing whatever thought pops into your head that appeals to your fancy. If he's going to assert that there "must" be a consciousness, and that he's going to call it "God", then frankly I'm going to call bullshit.

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about?
— S

Then what are you here for? — Wallows

That doesn't answer my question. And it was a question, not a statement, as you seem to have taken it.