Materialist vs Spiritualist

[Carcano]

Atheist vs. Theist is a far less important question than Materialist vs. Spiritualist.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Atheist vs. Theist is a far less important question than Materialist vs. Spiritualist.

A binary model of the human spirit? You must be an Abrahamist. I am neither a spiritualist nor a materialist. I am an atheist who cares about my fellow humans. It is a philosophy derived by reasoning and learning, components of the scientific method. I recognize that if devote a certain portion of my energy to the advancement of civilization rather than entirely to my own luxury, and use my well-known persuasive powers to entreat others to behave the same way, we will all be better off.

*moved to appropriate forum-Sam*

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70083

 

[Carcano]

I am neither a spiritualist nor a materialist.

I am both. A dualistic model which upholds the reality of the physical world...coexisting peacefully with an undefinable and immortal something called spirit.

If you are neither it means you dont believe that matter is real, or that spirit is real.

I recognize that if devote a certain portion of my energy to the advancement of civilization rather than entirely to my own luxury, and use my well-known persuasive powers to entreat others to behave the same way, we will all be better off.

Ok, but who is this 'we'...under the reign of strict materialism?

Does 'we' include Fraggle.

Sure, but this inclusion is nothing more than a moment passing into oblivion....here today, gone tomorrow.

And if 'we' doesnt include you, why should you care?

 

[iceaura]

Okay so chance is involved and genes are selected by chance. What is the role of external pressures? Are they the chance?

If you mean what I take you to mean by "external pressures", they do some selection by differentially destroying this or that gene. If you mean something else, I don't know.

He does? Like how? ”

Like this?

I don't see anything in there about using credentials as a platform. Where is that part?

If you are neither it means you dont believe that matter is real, or that spirit is real.

I don't think your apparent assumptions about the nature of matter and spirit are consistent, or valid, or in agreement with the world of my experience and investigation.

I may be wrong about your assumptions - to check one of them: are you actually claiming to be able to assign anything nameable a place as either material or spiritual, as a fixed, permanent categorization ?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I am both. A dualistic model which upholds the reality of the physical world...coexisting peacefully with an undefinable and immortal something called spirit.

Well sorry. I took too many econ courses in college, and then I lived through the Cold War with the Rooskies calling us "materialists." I was thinking of materialism as the pursuit of posessions.

If you are neither it means you dont believe that matter is real, or that spirit is real.

Yes of course I think that matter is real--in layman's terms. With relativity, string theory, and all the latest developments in physics, I wonder whether even reality is real.

However, in my parlance, "spirit" is a metaphor. It's something that we humans generously ascribe to ourselves. I extend it to our artifacts. To say that the spirit of some unknown pre-Indo-European people lives on in Stonehenge is merely to say that some part of their culture has survived and continues to enrich the continuum of what has evolved into civilization. But no, I don't believe in the supernatural. That is pure human hubris. We are humble collections of molecules like all matter. We make our own cultural laws but when it comes to natural laws, no exception is made for us.

Ok, but who is this 'we'...under the reign of strict materialism?

"We" is the entire community. It's the group of people with whom we agree to live in harmony and cooperation because "we" are all better off for it. In the Neolithic it was the village. At the dawn of civilization it was the city. Now the nation. I foresee the day when it will be the entire human race.

Does 'we' include Fraggle.

Of course it does. That's the whole point. We each behave harmoniously and cooperatively so that all of us, including ourselves, will be better off. A little altruism never hurt anybody but it's not a requirement for membership in civilization.

Sure, but this inclusion is nothing more than a moment passing into oblivion....here today, gone tomorrow.

Sure. And we get the satisfaction of knowing that the civilization we helped to advance will be around for many more tomorrows. People used to be content to have helped their children prosper. We can take credit for helping... oh I don't know... at the projected birthrate, something like half a trillion people over the next ten thousand years prosper. Feels good.

And if 'we' doesnt include you, why should you care?

We seem to be muddling through a misunderstanding. Was this all started by my 1963 Econ 101 interpretation of the word "materialism"?

 

[Carcano]

We are humble collections of molecules like all matter.

And therein lies the basis for your economics 101 materialism.

If you believe you are nothing more than a lump of flesh that evolved for no reason, which will return to unconscious particles when you die...then naturally you wont be interested in anything other than physical experiences....attained through the miracle of economic hunting and gathering.

"We" is the entire community. It's the group of people with whom we agree to live in harmony and cooperation because "we" are all better off for it.

In the Neolithic it was the village. At the dawn of civilization it was the city. Now the nation. I foresee the day when it will be the entire human race.

We each behave harmoniously and cooperatively so that all of us, including ourselves, will be better off.

And we get the satisfaction of knowing that the civilization we helped to advance will be around for many more tomorrows. People used to be content to have helped their children prosper. We can take credit for helping... oh I don't know... at the projected birthrate, something like half a trillion people over the next ten thousand years prosper.

Modern society still reflects the entire spectrum of accountability...as it has throughout most of history.

There are still millions of people who care only for the immediate moment and a microcosmic scope of relations...and a very small number of people whos focus is wider and more universal.

However, the latter type are rarely strict materialists...seeing as there is no basis in materialism for any structure of rightness, as it extends beyond the narrow and transitory.

 

[Carcano]

I may be wrong about your assumptions - to check one of them: are you actually claiming to be able to assign anything nameable a place as either material or spiritual, as a fixed, permanent categorization?

Yes...unless theres some form of quantum weirdness going on???

 

[iceaura]

Yes...unless theres some form of quantum weirdness going on???

So which category is "truth" in? How about "red", "happiness", "somber", "fifteen", "metal", "choreography", "music",etc ?

The existence of patterns, in hierarchies - patterns of patterns of patterns - seems to be underestimated by the material/spirit dualists. Patterns don't necessarily weigh anything, are not defined by the nature of their substrate, are in principle immortal - at least with respect to any subset of the universe - yet have physical manifestation: they can be physically destroyed.

Ideas cause memories - patterns of activity in the brain. Memories can be destroyed, physically - by disorganizing the substrate in which the patterns happen. Are memories of ideas spiritual or material ?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If you believe you are nothing more than a lump of flesh that evolved for no reason, which will return to unconscious particles when you die...then naturally you wont be interested in anything other than physical experiences....attained through the miracle of economic hunting and gathering.

Of course. I am a scientist, at least an amateur scientist. That is why I am here on SciForums. That's what this place is for. Your ramblings have gone way beyond the boundaries of science. In fact you seem to dismiss the entire body of science by giving it the quaint label of "materialism." Your theories are not based on observation and reasoning, and are therefore not falsifiable. They don't belong in this scientific subforum. Please take them to Philosophy, Religion or Pseudoscience.

There are still millions of people who care only for the immediate moment and a microcosmic scope of relations...and a very small number of people whos focus is wider and more universal.

The design of civilization was largely unconscious, and its maintenance continues to be so. The beauty of its structure is that people only have to care strongly about the lives of themselves and their extended families (the "immediate moment" in your cosmic perspective of the eons), and apply the learning they've been provided and the reasoning they've been taught, in order for their entire civilization to prosper and advance.

The advantage of cooperation and harmony is intuitive. That intuition is reinforced every time we open a refrigerator that was built by someone else, take out food that was grown by someone else, and cook it with electricity or gas that is pumped in by someone else, as we prepare to go off to a job that only takes 40 hours of our time, doesn't involve danger, heavy lifting, or even grime, and someone else compensates us for our work by giving us the medium of exchange to acquire the refrigerator, food and electricity.

No one has to consciously think about the benefits of maintaining civilization, no one has to claim to care about anyone outside their circle of loved ones. Civilization works without all that because it is supported by constant empirical observation.

However, the latter type are rarely strict materialists...seeing as there is no basis in materialism for any structure of rightness, as it extends beyond the narrow and transitory.

Your language is so unscientific and so inappropriate for discourse among this community of scientists that it's not easy to figure out what you mean. But I'm guessing what you mean is that observation, reasoning and learning--the basis of science and what you apparently dismiss as "materialism" because it has no supernatural component such as "spirit"--do not provide any way for humans to develop a social system of harmony and cooperation in which behavior that benefits everyone and advances civilization is reinforced voluntarily with only a modicum of externally imposed order.

I have explained why this is not true several times, while trying to avoid repeating myself in case you just didn't understand me the first time. You have failed to refute anything I have said. You are not engaging in scientific debate and therefore you should not be posting this on one of our science subforums. Please take it to Religion, Philosophy, or Pseudoscience.

If you prefer to stay in this subforum, then please refresh yourself on the principles of the scientific method, and respect them from now on.

 

[Carcano]

Patterns don't necessarily weigh anything, are not defined by the nature of their substrate, are in principle immortal - yet have physical manifestation: they can be physically destroyed.

Physicality ultimately is a matter of atomic particles, which can be arranged into an infinite number or patterns and shapes.
But the patterns and shapes themselves are not physical.

Ideas cause memories - patterns of activity in the brain. Memories can be destroyed, physically - by disorganizing the substrate in which the patterns happen. Are memories of ideas spiritual or material?

This is a real fundamental question which does not yet have any solid answer.

Its true that memories seem to have a biological basis, but there is also the testimony of death researchers, who have discovered the experience of thought, memory, emotion and consciousness during periods of no biological/electrical brain activity whatsoever.

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Evidence for Survival After Death Index
(1) NDEs occur while patients are brain dead.

(2) Out-of-body perception during NDEs has been verified.

(3) People born blind can see during an NDE.

(4) NDEs demonstrate the return of consciousness from death.

(5) The NDE study by Raymond Moody has been replicated.

(6) Experimental evidence suggests that NDEs are real.

(7) NDEs can be considered to be an objective experience.

(8) NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.

(9) Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have been validated in scientific studies.

(10) Autoscopy during NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.

(11) A transcendental "sixth sense" of the human mind has been found.

(12) NDEs support the "holonomic" theory of consciousness.

(13) The expansion of consciousness reported in NDEs supports consciousness theories.

(14) The brain's connection to a greater power has been validated by indisputable scientific facts.

(15) The replication of NDEs using hallucinogenic drugs satisfies the scientific method.

(16) NDEs are different from hallucinations.

(17) The replication of NDEs using a variety of triggers satisfies the scientific method.

(18) Apparitions of the deceased have been induced under scientific controls.

(19) People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.

(20) NDEs have advanced the field of medical science.

(21) NDEs have advanced the field of psychology.

(22) NDEs correspond to the "quirky" principles found in quantum physics.

(23) The transcendental nature of human consciousness during NDEs corresponds to principles found in quantum physics.

(24) NDEs have advanced the fields of philosophy and religion.

(25) NDEs have the nature of an archetypal initiatory journey.

(26) People have been clinically dead for several days and report the most profound NDEs.

(27) NDEs have produced visions of the future which later prove to be true.

(28) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.

(29) Experiencers are convinced the NDE is an afterlife experience.

(30) The NDEs of children are remarkably similar to adult NDEs.

(31) Experiencers of NDEs are profoundly changed in ways that cannot occur from hallucinations and dreams.

(32) NDEs cannot be explained merely by brain chemistry alone.

(33) NDEs have been reported by people since the dawn of recorded history.

(34) The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has serious flaws.

(35) Skeptical arguments against the NDE "survival theory" are not valid.

(36) The burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics of the survival theory.

(37) Other anomalous phenomena supports the survival theory.

(38) NDEs support the existence of reincarnation.

(39) The scientific evidence supporting reincarnation also supports the survival theory.

(40) Xenoglossy supports reincarnation and the survival theory.

 

[Carcano]

In fact you seem to dismiss the entire body of science by giving it the quaint label of "materialism."

No I dont dismiss it, merely give it its proper place. The material universe isnt somehow 'bad', but neither can it explain the whole picture relative to human experience.

But I'm guessing what you mean is that observation, reasoning and learning--the basis of science and what you apparently dismiss as "materialism" because it has no supernatural component such as "spirit"

Again, the problem is not that materialism has no spiritual component. If that were the case it wouldnt be materialism, as it is a separate dimension.

 

[iceaura]

This is a real fundamental question which does not yet have any solid answer.

Sure it does - the categories are mistaken, and don't work. There is no material/spiritual duality,

as you would discover if you attempted to classify all those other "things" I listed.

but there is also the testimony of death researchers, who have discovered the experience of thought, memory, emotion and consciousness during periods of no biological/electrical brain activity whatsoever.

They have not.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

i am a spiritual materialistic agnostic daoist.


peace.

 

[nietzschefan]

Atheist vs. Theist is a far less important question than Materialist vs. Spiritualist.

I would certainly agree with that.

 

[Carcano]

as you would discover if you attempted to classify all those other "things" I listed.

You mean qualites and things like metal, 15, red, happiness, beauty, etc.

Classifying these words doesnt disprove the existence of a material/spiritual duality at all, in fact its the exclusion of various categories of experience that disproves the strict materialist world view.

 

[Carcano]

The design of civilization was largely unconscious, and its maintenance continues to be so. The beauty of its structure is that people only have to care strongly about the lives of themselves and their extended families, and apply the learning they've been provided and the reasoning they've been taught, in order for their entire civilization to prosper and advance.

Your confusion here stems from the fact that you are not addressing human civilization society at all, but rather something more like an ant hill.

Ant colonies function exactly as you describe, unconsciously according to instinct, and with no other objective than the maintence of order and communal prosperity, extending no further into the future than a few months.

Humans are vastly more complex and diverse. There is a small spectrum of society who constantly seek to undermine the basic altruism of the mean.
Millions of people have been killed by their own species...something which doesnt happen en mass in the animal kingdom.

And at the other end of the spectrum are the small number of people who consciously work towards the improvement of civilization at enormous personal sacrifice...improvements which will extend far beyond their lifetime, or even the lifetime of their children.

Neither end of the spectrum of good and evil has any explanation from the strictly materialist camp, which trys soooo hard to regard human scociety as functioning only according the same genetic programming as your ant hill.

 

[iceaura]

Classifying these words doesnt disprove the existence of a material/spiritual duality at all, in fact its the exclusion of various categories of experience that disproves the strict materialist world view.

It's the inability to classify them as either material or spiritual that reveals the inadequacy of a proposed material/spiritual duality.

It doesn't cover all the bases. You need to start over, with a different classification scheme, if you want to encompass the world of our experience.

Try it, if you don't believe me. Pick something "material", and try to remove all of its "spiritual" attributes as revealed by your classification of such words as "fifteen", "red", "weight", "charge", "resonance", "name", "kind", etc.

 

[Carcano]

It's the inability to classify them as either material or spiritual that reveals the inadequacy of a proposed material/spiritual duality.

It doesn't cover all the bases. You need to start over, with a different classification scheme, if you want to encompass the world of our experience.

The dualism I describe doesnt seek to encompass every category of language. There are many words that describes qualities, as opposed to entities. Many of your examples are words that describe qualities.

I imagine numbers would have another category all to themselves...being neither things nor qualities.

 

[iceaura]

Many of your examples are words that describe qualities.

I imagine numbers would have another category all to themselves...being neither things nor qualities.

So in addition to "material" or "spiritual", we have this large other realm of qualities, natures, numbers, abstractions, etc.

In that realm are things like "metal" - a category of correlated qualities, if I have your language correct.

Is there anything that is not in that realm - anything that is, say, material, without qualities or other non-material properties?

btw: we have made a journey of some distance from this:

are you actually claiming to be able to assign anything nameable a place as either material or spiritual, as a fixed, permanent categorization? ”

Yes...unless theres some form of quantum weirdness going on???

So: no, one cannot classify everything nameable as either material or spiritual. The next question is: can one classify anything at all as material only, or spiritual only ?

 

[Carcano]

So in addition to "material" or "spiritual", we have this large other realm of qualities, natures, numbers, abstractions, etc.

Yes, but these other 'realms' as you call them are not realms of being. These words are merely articles of language we assign to principles which are not entities...for lack of a better word.

So: no, one cannot classify everything nameable as either material or spiritual.

Every 'thing' yes...can be classified as either material or spirit, but no other nameables which have no apparent 'thingness'...!