I am speaking chiefly to those materialists who use science to justify their position that matter and mechanics can account for the entirety of existence. I think most materialists sincerely believe what they propose, and I will assume that for this critique. I ask you to assume about me that I am relatively informed about science (for a layperson), and I have no doubt about the effectiveness of science to expose the workings of the physical world.

As has been pointed out in other threads, science itself is a discipline for studying the material world, and those applying science don’t necessarily believe science can answer all questions. I do think it is fair to say that among scientists, there is probably a higher percentage of materialists than in the general population.

However, there are many participating in this philosophical section who exclusively rely on empirical evidence to support a materialistic philosophy. To them it seems science and materialism are synonymous. For this thread, when I talk about materialists I mean such empirically materialistic devotees.

Someone argued in another thread that beliefs, practices and reasoning which deal with God defines religion, but that is not the only definition. Quoting from my unabridged dictionary, religion can also mean, “A cause, principle, or system of tenants held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith . . . a value held to be of supreme importance . . . inspiring zealous devotion.”

As someone who’s studied the religious phenomenon extensively, and tried to avoid getting entangled in any form of it, to me materialists exhibit the characteristics of being religious. The way a fundamentalist might cling to scripture as “proof” of the truth, so too do materialists cling to empiricism as the “way.” If you say anything non-empirical, they quote scripture and verse from some study or piece of empirical evidence they believe proves/indicates the correct way of looking at things. If you say maybe empiricism can’t reveal the whole truth, they quote you more studies and empirical evidence! Their faith seems absolute and, in my opinion, blinded to anything other than what makes it through the empirical materialist filter.

Now, how might this make them unable to think properly? What follows is my list of the worst problems to proper thinking (some concepts on the list are taken from my previous posts):

Reductionist Habituation

The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence. This inability to do any contemplative mental function other than reduction leads to . . .

Disregarding Feeling-knowledge

Relentless reduction seems to disassociate awareness from one’s sensitivity, which is why for a materialist the term “feeling” becomes synonymous with emotion. Apparently materialist thinking robs one of the ability to consider feeling any other way.

No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

In one thread I described an underlying sensitivity that precedes all human awareness functions, a very basic sensitivity of the human which appears to permeate our system. I tried to explain how the senses (which "feel" light and sound), the emotional system (which is not general sensitivity, but a very specific physical application of sensitivity), our dependence on experience to know, intuition, the intensity with which we seek to feel good (every activity in life seems an effort to feel good or avoid feeling badly), and our ability to develop the rich qualities of appreciation, love, joy and happiness are all examples of our root feeling nature.

I tried to explain how this "base sensitivity" is a fundamentally neutral level of sensitivity that is anchored in the central nervous system, and which takes on layer upon layer of conditioning as life proceeds to eventually become the personality and mind. But at the root of it, behind it all, the original neutral feeling remains intact.

No materialist understood. I believe they didn’t because incessant reduction combined with devotion to materialist philosophy creates disassociation from one’s base sensitivity. That loss of awareness of human base sensitivity leads to being . . .

Whole-view Challenged

The whole-view is a contemplative attempt to maintain a sense of everything that exists without giving special attention to the “parts” that are within the whole. But the whole is not just a mental perspective. For it to have any connection to reality that “sense of everything” must have an experiential component, and guess how one experiences the whole? By feeling it. Since materialists cannot imagine any other sort of feeling than emotion, this is the major thinking area their feeling ineptness robs from them.

Whole-view contemplation is not in competition with reduction, but instead is a different sort of deliberation altogether. It is funny to try to explain what you mean by holistic contemplation to a reducing materialist because they seem to think you mean the whole-view of a “part.” They might say there is the whole of a lamp, for instance, and then there are the parts that compose the whole lamp. It seems inconceivable to them to feel (as defined) the total of reality when contemplating. This inability to feel and contemplate the whole leads to . . .

A Narrow Philosophical Self Education

Habitually reductionist, separated from their base sensitivity, part-obsessed and blind to the whole-view, they decide what to study. Nothing makes sense to them except empirically-supported materialistic concepts, so they study that which strengthens their ability to understand materialism. Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

Like all religions, their zealous devotion to a belief system comes to supersede the search for truth, and so when they need but lack evidence to support their case, they practice . . .

Premature Logic Leaps

The belief that materialistic philosophy can account for everything, forces materialists to provide explanations for the most profound stuff in creation. Life is chemistry-complexity, so is consciousness. The origin of the universe is a fluctuations in nothingness, humans are robots.

Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe!

No thanks, that is religion pure and simple.

Conclusion

Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to something other than truth-seeking.. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

As I’ve suggested before, why not open up to all forms of evidence and knowledge? Why be concerned about whether or not data supports a god, vital force, or consciousness? The truth is the truth, and it can only help to know it, no matter how it turns out to be. Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

In the meantime, what shall we do with materialists? Deprogramming? Sensitivity training? A cattle prod? No, I suppose we better love them so they don’t abandon we whole-view thinkers who can’t figure out how to get from point SR to point QM without their invaluable assistance.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
First let me admit my title was meant to torment materialists a bit, but good naturedly. I am hoping to have a debate to determine if the materialist stance allows one the full range of information available for reasoning.

I am speaking chiefly to those materialists who use science to justify their position that matter and mechanics can account for the entirety of existence. I think most materialists sincerely believe what they propose, and I will assume that for this critique. I ask you to assume about me that I am relatively informed about science (for a layperson), and I have no doubt about the effectiveness of science to expose the workings of the physical world.

As has been pointed out in other threads, science itself is a discipline for studying the material world, and those applying science don’t necessarily believe science can answer all questions. I do think it is fair to say that among scientists, there is probably a higher percentage of materialists than in the general population.

However, there are many participating in this philosophical section who exclusively rely on empirical evidence to support a materialistic philosophy. To them it seems science and materialism are synonymous. For this thread, when I talk about materialists I mean such empirically materialistic devotees.

Someone argued in another thread that beliefs, practices and reasoning which deal with God defines religion, but that is not the only definition. Quoting from my unabridged dictionary, religion can also mean, “A cause, principle, or system of tenants held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith . . . a value held to be of supreme importance . . . inspiring zealous devotion.”

As someone who’s studied the religious phenomenon extensively, and tried to avoid getting entangled in any form of it, to me materialists exhibit the characteristics of being religious. The way a fundamentalist might cling to scripture as “proof” of the truth, so too do materialists cling to empiricism as the “way.” If you say anything non-empirical, they quote scripture and verse from some study or piece of empirical evidence they believe proves/indicates the correct way of looking at things. If you say maybe empiricism can’t reveal the whole truth, they quote you more studies and empirical evidence! Their faith seems absolute and, in my opinion, blinded to anything other than what makes it through the empirical materialist filter.

Now, how might this make them unable to think properly? What follows is my list of the worst problems to proper thinking (some concepts on the list are taken from my previous posts):

Reductionist Habituation

The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence.

---

quote:

---

This inability to do any contemplative mental function other than reduction leads to . . .

Disregarding Feeling-knowledge

Relentless reduction seems to disassociate awareness from one’s sensitivity, which is why for a materialist the term “feeling” becomes synonymous with emotion. Apparently materialist thinking robs one of the ability to consider feeling any other way.

---

This is moot. Feelings, whether emotions or intuition, are reducible, comprehensible phenomena. Emotions are survival mechanisms based upon chemicals. Intuition is the unresolved accumulation of related information, whether that information is accurate or inaccurate.

quote:

---

No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

---

quote:

---

In one thread I described an underlying sensitivity that precedes all human awareness functions, a very basic sensitivity of the human which appears to permeate our system. I tried to explain how the senses (which "feel" light and sound), the emotional system (which is not general sensitivity, but a very specific physical application of sensitivity), our dependence on experience to know, intuition, the intensity with which we seek to feel good (every activity in life seems an effort to feel good or avoid feeling badly), and our ability to develop the rich qualities of appreciation, love, joy and happiness are all examples of our root feeling nature.

---

Most of this is too vaque to understand. The part I put in bold is obviously false. Much of it is easily explicable as survival mechanism.

quote:

---

I tried to explain how this "base sensitivity" is a fundamentally neutral level of sensitivity that is anchored in the central nervous system, and which takes on layer upon layer of conditioning as life proceeds to eventually become the personality and mind. But at the root of it, behind it all, the original neutral feeling remains intact.

No materialist understood.

---

Neural networks are understood. There are demonstrated methods of learning. Exposure to external stimuli causes dendrite growth, synaptic threshholding adjustments, and axon weighting adjustments. These phenomena are all within materialists domain. This "base sensitivity" you so vaguely describe sounds like conciousness. Conciousness is not so well understood. The only claim materialists can make to conciousness is that it is highly likely that it will be understood. My slightly informed opinion is that they are probably right.

quote:

---

I believe they didn’t because incessant reduction combined with devotion to materialist philosophy creates disassociation from one’s base sensitivity. That loss of awareness of human base sensitivity leads to being . . .

Whole-view Challenged

The whole-view is a contemplative attempt to maintain a sense of everything that exists without giving special attention to the “parts” that are within the whole. But the whole is not just a mental perspective.

---

Of course it isn't. The whole is the whole. But our mental perspective of the whole is a mental perspective. If you believe otherwise, it is your unchallenged intuition deceiving your concious mind. It can do this because you lack the proper tools for thinking critically.

quote:

---

For it to have any connection to reality that “sense of everything” must have an experiential component, and guess how one experiences the whole? By feeling it. Since materialists cannot imagine any other sort of feeling than emotion, this is the major thinking area their feeling ineptness robs from them.

---

You experience the whole by feeling...and seeing, smelling, tasting and hearing. Because you lack the critical capacity to examine your own thoughts, you do not understand your responses to external stimuli. You may consider the capacity for critical thought to be ineptness if you choose, but I will not agree with you.

quote:

---

Whole-view contemplation is not in competition with reduction, but instead is a different sort of deliberation altogether. It is funny to try to explain what you mean by holistic contemplation to a reducing materialist because they seem to think you mean the whole-view of a “part.” They might say there is the whole of a lamp, for instance, and then there are the parts that compose the whole lamp. It seems inconceivable to them to feel (as defined) the total of reality when contemplating.

---

You presume too much. Appreciation of the whole is the most powerful driving force to understand it. The profound effect of the totality of existance acting upon us is what drives us to want to understand. To understand, we reduce. You can appreciate existance as a whole. You can not understand it. Your brain does not work that way. Your brain is capable of deceiving you into thinking it works that way, but it doesn't.

quote:

---

This inability to feel and contemplate the whole leads to . . .

A Narrow Philosophical Self Education

Habitually reductionist, separated from their base sensitivity, part-obsessed and blind to the whole-view, they decide what to study. Nothing makes sense to them except empirically-supported materialistic concepts, so they study that which strengthens their ability to understand materialism. Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

---

quote:

---

Like all religions, their zealous devotion to a belief system comes to supersede the search for truth,

---

quote:

---

...and so when they need but lack evidence to support their case, they practice . . .

Premature Logic Leaps

The belief that materialistic philosophy can account for everything, forces materialists to provide explanations for the most profound stuff in creation. Life is chemistry-complexity, so is consciousness. The origin of the universe is a fluctuations in nothingness, humans are robots.

Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe!

No thanks, that is religion pure and simple.

---

quote:

---

Conclusion

Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to a perspective over and above truth-seeking. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

As I’ve suggested before, why not open up to all forms of evidence and knowledge? Why be concerned about whether or not data supports a god, vital force, or consciousness? The truth is the truth, and it can only help to know it, no matter how it turns out to be. Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

In the meantime, what shall we do with materialists? Deprogramming? Sensitivity training? A cattle prod? No, I suppose we better love them so they don’t abandon we whole-view thinkers who can’t figure out how to get from point SR to point QM without their invaluable assistance.

. . . Les

---

I don't think you really touched the arguement most philosophers have with materialists. That arguement is very hard for me to describe. I think I can illustrate it best with an example:

Is it good to eat meat? Materialists will argue the benefits of protein, or the sophistication of animal neural systems. What usually escapes diehard materialists is that the argument is really about the meaning of the word "good". That is a tough one for materialists.

The unknowables are most easily seen when they are of a moral or ethical nature. What is the value of life, plant, animal or human life? Is a baby more valued than an adult? A materialist can do polls, and statistical analysis to guage popular opinion, but is that knowing? Because "value" is a word with a meaning defined in relation to other words, all of which have slightly different meanings to all people, a materialist can't build a calibrated tool to measure it.

This arguement can be extended into all fields of endeavor, less forcefully in my opinion, but not without merit. We can only know things as accurately as the universality of our definitions. In abstract math, these definitions are wonderfully precise and nearly universal. As we get to more "real-life" situations, the different experiences of every person begin to color the definitions differently for each person.

Njorl

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
I really don't think you know the limits of materialism. There are limits, but they have been pushed beyond most of what you describe.

---

Thank you for taking the time to post a thoughtful response.

You are correct, I am not a materialist and have formed my opinions mostly from reading and interacting with them. I am open to my opinions being adjusted by experts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
Nonsense. There are many means of discovery of the nature of something other than taking it apart. Unstimulated observation of the whole, and observation of systematic stimulation of the whole are common methods.

---

True. However, the sort of systemic “whole” you are speaking of is within an environment, which is in an environment, and so on; plus, the systemic whole may provide an environment for other elements. To understand how a systemic whole works one must see how it fits in and interacts with its environment. As a study proceeds, behaviors are noted, causes are hypothesized, effects are recorded, etc. And then all of it is fit together with other things which are known or strongly suspected. In the end, the purpose of unstimulated or systemic stimulation observation is for the purpose of joining parts, or finding parts to explain the systemic whole because this really does help explain how the whole works.

Keep in mind that I don’t see the slightest problem with reduction on reducible things. It’s a great analytical technique. The problem I have is when someone applies that technique to everything, and consciously or subconsciously concludes that what doesn’t lend itself to that process isn’t real.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Relentless reduction seems to disassociate awareness from one’s sensitivity, which is why for a materialist the term “feeling” becomes synonymous with emotion. Apparently materialist thinking robs one of the ability to consider feeling any other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
This is moot. Feelings, whether emotions or intuition, are reducible, comprehensible phenomena. Emotions are survival mechanisms based upon chemicals. Intuition is the unresolved accumulation of related information, whether that information is accurate or inaccurate.

---

I knew you were going to say that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
On the contrary, those who refuse to acknowledge the mechanics of their own thinking processes are at a disadvantage. They lose a possible perspective from which to criticize their own ideas. Recognition that emotions can sway thoughts is important, as you would probably agree. Even more important is the recognition that unchallenged intuition may be deceitful, or may be an untapped source of insight.

---

You miss my point. You are already reducing the sort of holistic feeling I am describing first into “components,” and then subordinating it by making it only valuable in terms of its usefulness to rational evaluation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
In one thread I described an underlying sensitivity that precedes all human awareness functions, a very basic sensitivity of the human which appears to permeate our system. I tried to explain how the senses (which "feel" light and sound), the emotional system (which is not general sensitivity, but a very specific physical application of sensitivity), our dependence on experience to know, intuition, the intensity with which we seek to feel good (every activity in life seems an effort to feel good or avoid feeling badly), and our ability to develop the rich qualities of appreciation, love, joy and happiness are all examples of our root feeling nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
Most of this is too vague to understand. The part I put in bold is obviously false. Much of it is easily explicable as survival mechanism.

---

Now it is you who are talking nonsense. After the raw desire to live found in all life, name me one, just one activity, that people do which can’t be explained as either an attempt to feel good or to avoid feeling badly. This is a well-established theory of human psychology.

If you cite, for instance, a woman who stays in an abusive relationship, I will say she does so because she perceives the alternatives to be more painful. A mother who faces suffering to have a child does so because she believes the child overall will make her feel good. A mother will face death to save a child because it feels worse to let the child be hurt than to be hurt or killed herself. A masochist derives sexual pleasure from pain, addicts pursue pleasure and/or avoid pain through drugs, we might work at a horrible job but it is less painful than starving or going homeless, or you might go homeless and hungry because it feels better than putting up with/risking oppressive bosses, etc.

I say, over and above every other goal save survival we want to feel good; and even survival may be sacrificed when someone decides it will feel better to kill oneself than to go on living.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
. . . the whole is not just a mental perspective. For it to have any connection to reality that “sense of everything” must have an experiential component, and guess how one experiences the whole? By feeling it. Since materialists cannot imagine any other sort of feeling than emotion, this is the major thinking area their feeling ineptness robs from them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
Of course it isn't. The whole is the whole. But our mental perspective of the whole is a mental perspective. If you believe otherwise, it is your unchallenged intuition deceiving your conscious mind. It can do this because you lack the proper tools for thinking critically. . . . You experience the whole by feeling...and seeing, smelling, tasting and hearing. Because you lack the critical capacity to examine your own thoughts, you do not understand your responses to external stimuli. You may consider the capacity for critical thought to be ineptness if you choose, but I will not agree with you.

---

Well, I suppose a debate such as this is a test of how critically one can think.

I say you have missed exactly what I predicted you would, and for the exact reasons. Earlier you said “this ‘base sensitivity’ you so vaguely describe sounds like consciousness.” That is exactly what I believe it is, and I am saying it exists in the human first as a general and neutral sensitivity. Part of that sensitivity is drawn into the physical system of senses, emotions, and intuition, but the central part of it remains holistically intact behind all “part” awareness functions. A person can learn to experience that holistic element of oneself, and then rely on it to perceive the “whole” of reality.

Admittedly the perception is impressionistic, and if one is going to think with those impressions one had better be careful. You are right, lots of people do go off half-cocked thinking with them without taking sufficient time to understand the mechanics of physical reality. Personally, I believe the impressions totally, but I will not attempt to fit the impressions with mechanistic explanations without studying science experts. So far I’ve not found a single contradiction between what I feel this way, and how reality has been proven to work. Where I do find a contradiction is when materialists start trying to give a mechanistic interpretation to consciousness and life, but I can feel (as defined) they are not the result of materiality.

Now is that uncritical thinking? I don’t think it is. I am just saying possibly I am privy to information you are not because you don’t trust that part of yourself, and so haven’t developed skill with it. And I am not saying this “base sensitivity” is all there is, or that we can dispense with critical thinking, I am just saying it is necessary for a full understanding of reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Whole-view contemplation is not in competition with reduction, but instead is a different sort of deliberation altogether. It is funny to try to explain what you mean by holistic contemplation to a reducing materialist because they seem to think you mean the whole-view of a “part.” They might say there is the whole of a lamp, for instance, and then there are the parts that compose the whole lamp. It seems inconceivable to them to feel (as defined) the total of reality when contemplating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
Appreciation of the whole is the most powerful driving force to understand it. The profound effect of the totality of existence acting upon us is what drives us to want to understand. To understand, we reduce. You can appreciate existence as a whole. You can not understand it. Your brain does not work that way. Your brain is capable of deceiving you into thinking it works that way, but it doesn't.

---

I agree totally with you here. I want to understand it too, and I do reduce in order to do that. I also know that is exactly how the brain is set up to work, and therefore that is how the brain is best utilized. I also do not believe the “whole” can ever be fully understood. But what you still don’t understand is this other “holistic” perception I speak of. That is not a thing of the brain, and it is not something that understands really, but rather knows.

My favorite example is how that part of us suddenly “knows” how to ride a bike. You can break down all the actions of riding, and practice each perfectly, but when you finally “get it” you just know (and can’t forget). There is a holistic element to riding the bike, along with the elements of pedaling, steering, etc. The brain can handle the parts stuff, but the holistic part of us has to handle what is holistic about riding.

Similarly, I am suggesting that is possible to focus on and develop that holistic aspect of ourselves, and then use it for holistic contemplation. It does not work the way the brain works in the slightest. And there is no reason for brain and that to be in competition. Each has its place and methods of achieving competency, and each reveals different sorts of information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
Most of what you have materialists dismissing are products of self-deceit that have been tools of humanity in the past.

---

That is quite a list you’ve written off as tools of self-deceit. To me their “dismissals” are the height of arrogance. All it proves is that empirical materialism cannot account for such things, but rather than doubt the method of research, they dismiss everything that doesn’t register on the oscilloscope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe! No thanks, that is religion pure and simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
No. It is confidence inspired by past performance. The past that encompasses the discovery of many aspects of life, and of the mind. At present, a belief that life and consciousness are materially understandable and reproducible are hypotheses that are being worked toward. You seem to be contending that all hypotheses must be instantly proven or they are religion. That is ignorance.

---

I’ve debated this point extensively over three threads, so I’d rather not start it again here. But, what I object to is not materialists having confidence, but rather preaching unproven materialistic claims like it’s fact. In the case of life from chemistry-complexity, or “chemogenesis” as DT Strain calls it, you can find that theory in virtually every text book in the country. Yet no one has shown chemistry has to potential to self organize to that extent. Limited self organization, yes; spontaneous, perpetual, system-building, evolving, metabolizing, reproducing self-organization, no. But it doesn’t stop materialists from speaking about chemogenesis as a foregone conclusion.

Similarly, talk to Siv and it is already a fact that we are robots, that consciousness is just programming, and that eventually AI will achieve consciousness. If I say, “when it comes to life and consciousness, your chemistry and programming achievements are not enough evidence yet to say with any certainty that this is what life and consciousness are,” then what I get is long lectures on how much I don’t understand about the fields. Yet, I’ve challenged them, and I will you, to catch me with my science pants down, or to show I don’t have full respect for what science really can achieve. I love science; I just don’t love premature materialist claims because you can see the purpose of it is to win converts to a philosophy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to a perspective over and above truth-seeking. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by njorl:
It is you who have hampered thinking. You do not realize how your own mind deceives you, in ways that have historically been good for you.

---

Sorry Njorl, I don’t understand “in ways that have historically been good for you.”

But how is my thinking hampered? As I said, give me facts, give me evidence, give me science, but leave the materialistic philosophy and fudging out of it.

. . . Les

But anyway, I'll give it a go...

quote:

---

Why Materialists Can’t Think Properly

---

quote:

---

As someone who’s studied the religious phenomenon extensively, and tried to avoid getting entangled in any form of it, to me materialists exhibit the characteristics of being religious. The way a fundamentalist might cling to scripture as “proof” of the truth, so too do materialists cling to empiricism as the “way.” If you say anything non-empirical, they quote scripture and verse from some study or piece of empirical evidence they believe proves/indicates the correct way of looking at things. If you say maybe empiricism can’t reveal the whole truth, they quote you more studies and empirical evidence! Their faith seems absolute and, in my opinion, blinded to anything other than what makes it through the empirical materialist filter.

---

quote:

---

The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence. This inability to do any contemplative mental function other than reduction leads to . . .

---

quote:

---

No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

---

quote:

---

Habitually reductionist, separated from their base sensitivity, part-obsessed and blind to the whole-view, they decide what to study. Nothing makes sense to them except empirically-supported materialistic concepts, so they study that which strengthens their ability to understand materialism. Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

---

quote:

---

The belief that materialistic philosophy can account for everything, forces materialists to provide explanations for the most profound stuff in creation. Life is chemistry- complexity, so is consciousness. The origin of the universe is a fluctuations in nothingness, humans are robots.

Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe!

---

quote:

---

Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to a perspective over and above truth-seeking. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

---

quote:

---

Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

---

quote:

---

In the meantime, what shall we do with materialists? Deprogramming? Sensitivity training? A cattle prod? No, I suppose we better love them so they don’t abandon we whole-view thinkers who can’t figure out how to get from point SR to point QM without their invaluable assistance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
lwsleeth, I implore you to make your posts shorter. They are well argued and often reasonable (LG take note!), but their length kinda distracts people from replying. In other words, they scare me....

---

Now that I am having to answer all your responses I am thinking the same thing! However, thank you for your intelligent response to my materialist challenge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
But anyway, I'll give it a go... you can have the radicals who absolutely deny that anything other than physical exists, and you have those (eg. me) who accept that . . . such things can exist, but choose to assume otherwise until shown to be so.

---

Well, I respect the investigative stance greatly where one will “accept that such things can exist, but choose to assume otherwise until shown to be so.” I assume by “such things” you refer to non-material things. If I understand you correctly, you also are saying that the only evidence you have has determined your current thinking about reality, and since that evidence has purely or mostly been material . . . To me, that’s just smart; that is, to allow one’s opinions to be guided and limited by evidence, while remaining open to new evidence even at the expense of having to abandon one’s current beliefs (I may have put words in your mouth, and if so feel free to spit them out).

Already you’ve excluded yourself from the sort of radical materialism I am criticizing, but let’s continue the duel anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
If I was to say that any theory that denies God must be correct because it denies God, then I would be reasonably open to criticism. But if I say that any theory that can explain this and match reality without depending on things which like God cannot be tested or show is more scientific than one that does, it would be correct. This does not mean that I have faith the theory must be correct, but that I minimize the unnecessary factors in my theory until I have to involve them.

---

Very true. Again, that is just being intelligent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
A primary assumption in materialism, and indeed as part of science is that everything is divisible in terms of detail. There is no dead end in terms of knowledge. It is an assumption, I'll give you that. However, this is a reasonable and scientifically fruitful philosophy that has not failed yet. If Newton had settled for Kepler's notion that the orbits of the planets were simply ordained so by God, we would not have extrapolated deeper understanding. We would be left with just empirical facts and an intellectual dead end.

---

I can’t argue with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Are you referring to Myths about human....? Actually, the fact was we were arguing AGAINST LG's assertion that feeling eg pain was innately connected with emotion.

---

No, I haven’t read that part of the debate, so I will move on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
. . . the thrust of the argument was (a) feeling arises out of the physical complexity of the brain/nervous system . . . the whole may be greater in terms of properties than the total of the parts. Which is actually the opposite of what you said. To say this is a problem with materialists is incorrect.

---

Here you demonstrate the problem I speak of, which is trying to explain to a materialist that the feelings of the human physical system may not be something cumulative, but rather something derived from a neutral and holistic condition of sensitivity. But I will save further explanation of what I mean for one of your comments below.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
This can also be turned around : No matter how many times you try to explain to a spiritualist that awareness does not have to be with a soul, and a robot does not have to have no emotions, life does not have to be organic, consciousness does not have to be human, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said.

---

First, just so we are both clear, I am not a spiritualist and do not represent their beliefs. But when you say that “a robot does not have to have no emotions, life does not have to be organic, consciousness does not have to be human,” how can you justify those statements? No one has shown that a robot can have emotions (or take charge of itself, think creatively, etc.), that life can be inorganic (does you mean life can spontaneously arise from chemistry?), and that consciousness can exist outside a living system. These are materialist dreams. If they could achieve just one I’d be convinced there was substance to their beliefs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Dismissed does not imply an religious ban. Rather, we put the idea on hold until there is reason that it become reasonable. Until then, it is not WRONG, but in a state of flux - unproven, and undisproven. A realistic materialist never throws away the key, but considers there is almost always another way than using the unprovable.

---

Maybe you never throw away the key, but that is not the case with plenty of others. I would agree a truly neutral investigator genuinely seeking the truth might leave all doors open, but talking to a devoted materialist is like talking to a wall when it comes to anything non-material. It is so obvious they think they already know the truth . . . that is why they speak of materialist theory as though it is established fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Now, your assertion that by limiting theory to the observable, this narrow view is wrong is in my opinion incorrect. It is a matter of fact that in ANYTHING assumptions must be made. . . . In actuality, it is necessary to put restrictions to have results that reflect the real world. To make no such assumptions and regard all possibilities is in many ways irrational.

---

I did not say that one should limit theory to only what’s been observed. The main purpose of a theory is practical, to assist projecting from observed facts. When done well, such projections can help guide investigations toward more facts. In a couple of threads I’ve quoted a favorite empirical thinker of mine A.J. Ayer who said, “All propositions which have factual content are empirical hypotheses; and the foundation of an empirical hypothesis is to provide a rule for anticipation of experience.”

However!!!!!!! If one has an agenda, and that agenda is to prove materialism rather than find out the truth (and no matter what that truth turns out to be), then one can manipulate the standard for good theorizing towards one’s agenda. As far as the general and less-informed public knows, those materialistic science experts are theorizing with integrity, but I claim something else is going on.

My favorite example is chemogenesis because it is a theory that materialists have managed to get into all the textbooks, and on every origin of life special you see on TV. I ask, what is the basis for the faith in that theory? Well, look at life, they say, it is chemistry. That is true I admit, but it is chemistry acting differently than chemistry ever acts apart from life. The level and quality of organization is not explained by any known chemical principles.

Oh no, I am told, look right there under your nose! Chemistry is doing life.

I say, but wait, chemistry can’t organize itself like that. Oh sure it can, they say, look at crystals and autocatalytic reactions. I say, but that just goes on for a few repetitive or predictable steps, so all that shows is the potential of chemistry to be taken on a self-organizing journey -- it doesn’t tell us what is causing it to go on that journey.

So I ask for proof, and the proof doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. The proof I want to accept chemogenesis as the origin of life is to show that chemistry can spontaneously self organize into systems, which on top of ground systems new systems are built, on top of which . . . in other words, perpetual and progressive self organization leading to functional systems in support of a growing overall system. That is the sort of self organization that had to have happened to get to life, so show the potential of chemistry to spontaneously kick into that sort of self-organizing gear!

Same is true of the theory that consciousness can be replicated by AI. Fine, I say, but do it before you start telling the world consciousness is an illusion, that there is no free will, there is no soul . . .

So my objection isn’t having a materialistic hypothesis; my problem is that such hypotheses are being preached as all but certain by those with a materialistic agenda when they are nowhere near demonstrating the truth of it. Because some of those preaching are in positions of power (academics, for example), and because the general public doesn’t know any better, devoted materialists are able to get inadequately-supported theories touted as “most likely true.” Not just to the general public either, but our children are being fed this materialistic propaganda.

I for one would love to thwart it. Not science or hypothesizing, and not by forcing science textbooks to present spiritual philosophies along side science. But rather, I would ask for a fair presentation of evidence, admission of exactly how far things must go before it can be considered a realistic model, and not just present everything which makes it appear science is on the verge of demonstrating the secrets of life and consciousness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to a perspective over and above truth-seeking. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Can you ever claim anyone is free of such bias? And non-material evidence? Such as...? Empiricism is based on evidence of any kind and hence an ideal of fundamental information over speculation. Beliefs are not evidence. (If they are, by your argument materialists have lots of evidence),

---

Yes, I can claim it. Give me the truth any, way, shape or form it might come in. Empirically, intuitively, spiritually . . . why should I care if it is truth that I want rather than trying to force truth to appear a certain way?

I do, however, believe that truths will not contradict each other. The so-called “paradoxes” some believe are part of reality are, in my opinion, non-existent. The only reason a paradox exists is because we don’t or possibly cannot understand how things are. So, I do not believe that if there is something immaterial it can possibly contradict what is proven to be true of the material. I don’t believe, for example, that “supernatural” is possible.

You ask for non-material evidence and then say, “Empiricism is based on evidence of any kind and hence an ideal of fundamental information over speculation.” Boy is that nonsense. Empiricism is dependent on sense observation, analysis and logical deduction. So far, empiricism has shown it is only capable of revealing physical factors.

The problem, as I said, is devoted materialists trying to explain everything as material, and claiming that anything that doesn’t show up through empirical research is unacceptable. Do you think one searches for non-material evidence using the same methods one uses to search for material evidence? If you don’t, then you are a rare materialist, because that is exactly what they do. They say, make it observable or shut up. I say, but what if physical observation isn’t how one experiences it? The devout materialist will say, if it isn’t empirically provable it is nonsense. And that is how it ends.

Above you responded to my idea of holistic feeling saying, “feeling arises out of the physical complexity of the brain/nervous system . . . the whole may be greater in terms of properties than the total of the parts.” I did a thread some time ago asking what was more basic to being human, feeling or reason. If you read that you might better understand what I mean by feeling, but let me give an analogy.

Imagine a group of electrical outlets where one can plug in a microphone, speakers, video camera, robot, and computer. Now someone naïve about electricity comes along and believes each component is manifesting a different sort of power; i.e, mic power, speaker power, video power, etc. But prior to being used, electricity might (loosely) to be said to be in a neutral state. If you really want to understand the nature of electricity, the best way to do that is to study it not being used.

Similarly, I personally know there is inside a human a “central” place where one can experience the energy of consciousness before it is doing anything, and what it seems like is pure sensitivity. It can link to senses, to emotions, and to intuition, but it is not those things, it’s just the base sensitivity of those things. By learning to experience consciousness in that holistic condition, a certain sensitivity to holistic qualities about reality develops in one. It takes time and practice, but it can be done. I know about this because I have taken time to practice experiencing it for nearly 30 years. Also, there is a rich history of people who’ve practiced this, which I presented briefly in my thread “The Evolutive Human.”

I have suggested that one will only find what a particular method reveals. Most materialists educate themselves to study and find material truths, and ignore the well-documented practice of non-material experience. How can that be considered an adequate education when one desires to hypothesize about the ultimate nature of existence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Les:
Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

---

quote:

---

[b]Originally posted by FZ:[/b
Only the radicals on both sides of the debate do so. Perhaps only radicals can't think properly?

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

[b]Originally posted by FZ:[/b
I say they are not found guilty, and thus innocent by default. Try again next time....

---

Can’t agree. The default you assume is due to joining those with whom you agree, and from assuming materialists’ successes prove they can think properly. I say, materialists can think okay about the material world, but limiting themselves to that makes them ignorant of what else there might be, and so impairs their ability to wholly think properly.

. . . Les

what about if the materialists are right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Radical Edward:
"Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to a perspective over and above truth-seeking."

---

Gee, did I say that? I should have said, "Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to something other than truth-seeking."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Radical Edward:
what about if the materialists are right?

---

That's fine with me, but don't act like you are right when you lack the evidence to confidently claim so, don't "dismiss" non-material theories when your own opposing theories are unproven, don't pretend to have studied all the evidence when your education is purely materialistic, and don't assume you know about all varieties of human experience when you do not.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Already you’ve excluded yourself from the sort of radical materialism I am criticizing, but let’s continue the duel anyway.

---

quote:

---

Here you demonstrate the problem I speak of, which is trying to explain to a materialist that the feelings of the human physical system may not be something cumulative, but rather something derived from a neutral and holistic condition of sensitivity. But I will save further explanation of what I mean for one of your comments below.

---

quote:

---

First, just so we are both clear, I am not a spiritualist and do not represent their beliefs. But when you say that “a robot does not have to have no emotions, life does not have to be organic, consciousness does not have to be human,” how can you justify those statements? No one has shown that a robot can have emotions (or take charge of itself, think creatively, etc.), that life can be inorganic (does you mean life can spontaneously arise from chemistry?), and that consciousness can exist outside a living system. These are materialist dreams. If they could achieve just one I’d be convinced there was substance to their beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Maybe you never throw away the key, but that is not the case with plenty of others. I would agree a truly neutral investigator genuinely seeking the truth might leave all doors open, but talking to a devoted materialist is like talking to a wall when it comes to anything non-material. It is so obvious they think they already know the truth . . . that is why they speak of materialist theory as though it is established fact.

---

Now, my perspective is that theories must involve two things to be valid:
1. They have to be theoretically consistent with previous theories, except if there is good reason otherwise. (eg. previous has a critical limitation/does not correspond as accurately with experiment etc)
2. They are based either on directly observable evidence, or are reasonable extrapolations thereof.

quote:

---

I say, but wait, chemistry can’t organize itself like that. Oh sure it can, they say, look at crystals and autocatalytic reactions. I say, but that just goes on for a few repetitive or predictable steps, so all that shows is the potential of chemistry to be taken on a self-organizing journey -- it doesn’t tell us what is causing it to go on that journey.

---

quote:

---

Not just to the general public either, but our children are being fed this materialistic propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I can claim it. Give me the truth any, way, shape or form it might come in. Empirically, intuitively, spiritually . . . why should I care if it is truth that I want rather than trying to force truth to appear a certain way?

---

quote:

---

I do, however, believe that truths will not contradict each other. The so-called “paradoxes” some believe are part of reality are, in my opinion, non-existent. The only reason a paradox exists is because we don’t or possibly cannot understand how things are. So, I do not believe that if there is something immaterial it can possibly contradict what is proven to be true of the material. I don’t believe, for example, that “supernatural” is possible.

---

quote:

---

Can’t agree. The default you assume is due to joining those with whom you agree, and from assuming materialists’ successes prove they can think properly. I say, materialists can think okay about the material world, but limiting themselves to that makes them ignorant of what else there might be, and so impairs their ability to wholly think properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
I am speaking chiefly to those materialists who use science to justify their position that matter and mechanics can account for the entirety of existence.

---

This is not correct. For the Nth time, philosophy and common sense tells us that we can only say meaningful things about what we can measure - nothing in science says this. Science, comes in later then, as the tool to measure that which we can see. Science does not, nor has it ever, said that what it measures is necesarilly all there is. But simple logic will tell you that nothing meaningful can be said about anything else because its just guesswork if you can't use science on it.

quote:

---

However, there are many participating in this philosophical section who exclusively rely on empirical evidence to support a materialistic philosophy.

---

Science doesn't support materialistic philosophy - materialism is supported by reason, common sense, and philosophy. Science is then below that level, and used to analyze the material.

quote:

---

Someone argued in another thread that beliefs, practices and reasoning which deal with God defines religion, but that is not the only definition. Quoting from my unabridged dictionary, religion can also mean, “A cause, principle, or system of tenants held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith . . . a value held to be of supreme importance . . . inspiring zealous devotion.”

---

This is why I called you religious and said I won't debate your religion(concerning union experieces). I wasn't referring to a formal organized religion.

quote:

---

As someone who’s studied the religious phenomenon extensively, and tried to avoid getting entangled in any form of it, to me materialists exhibit the characteristics of being religious. The way a fundamentalist might cling to scripture as “proof” of the truth, so too do materialists cling to empiricism as the “way.”

---

The reason it is "the way" is because of its effectiveness at changing the world, increasing lifespans, and empowering human beings. This is indesputable. If magic, prayer, union, or any other activity changes the world even a sizable fraction of that amount, it might be considered to be "the way". But nothing else has. If some new process comes along that yields real results and are far superior to those of science, then IT would be "the way". This is a conditional-love of science and the materialistic philosophy on which it is built. It is based on results - not faith. That's the difference.

quote:

---

If you say anything non-empirical, they quote scripture and verse from some study or piece of empirical evidence they believe proves/indicates the correct way of looking at things. If you say maybe empiricism can’t reveal the whole truth, they quote you more studies and empirical evidence!

---

No, I quote you the philosophy on which materialism is built - not more studies. That philosophy being that, since we are limited as human beings, there is no way to distinguish between fact and fantasy if we suppose things not based on empirical evidence. Without that backing us up, we are prone to confuse reality with our desires, delusions, and misconceptions. If there is some other way of obtaining truth, then we should be able to make use of these truths in a way that is practical. If we can't, then simple logic suggests that the truths gained by these other methods are either untrue, or useless at best.

It may be true that things exist which cannot be accessed empirically. But they are beyond our reach to distinguish between them and our fantasies. If anyone disputes this, then they should be able to prove that they have obtained information through non-empirical means. No one has ever done this in a controlled and reliably repeatable trustworthy fashion. Some people call these requirements ridgid and close minded - I call them "not being a self-deceived bafoon" (I mean that "good naturedly"). This is philosophy, not science - and it is what I answer you with when you empiricism can't reveal the whole truth.

quote:

---

Now, how might this make them unable to think properly? What follows is my list of the worst problems to proper thinking (some concepts on the list are taken from my previous posts):

Reductionist Habituation

The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence. This inability to do any contemplative mental function other than reduction leads to . . .

---

It only seems like silence when you are not listening. Here is my non-silence: If it is invisible (and by that I assume you mean COMPLETELY invisible to all devices), then it is beyond our ability as human beings to decipher. If this is not true, someone should be able to prove that they can find invisible things and then prove that they are there. No one has done this, but if they ever do I will change my position. Until then, it seems as though we are not able to detect the invisible (this is WHY it's invisible). People should be mature enough to accept that unfortunate reality, or capable enough to overcome it and prove it.

Just to use an example, only an idiot in the 10th century would have gone around claiming that there are invisible waves traveling around the planet that can carry messages. This is because he would have no way of knowing such a thing. But once radio waves were able to be detected, then they are no longer "invisible" to us. As it turned out, this idiot would have been correct, but since his statements aren't based on anything other than his rambling guesswork, he's still just a rambling idiot that got lucky. For every one of him, there were thousands of idiots that didn't get lucky and we had no way of telling the lucky idiots from the unlucky ones until someone actually stepped up to the plate and found a provable way to make radio waves "visible" (in the sense that we can detect them).

quote:

---

Disregarding Feeling-knowledge

Relentless reduction seems to disassociate awareness from one’s sensitivity, which is why for a materialist the term “feeling” becomes synonymous with emotion. Apparently materialist thinking robs one of the ability to consider feeling any other way.

No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said.

---

No, we hear you. You claim that human beings can "feel" phenomenon outside of their own bodies, through other means than the five senses. This is exactly the same as if someone claimed to have a mechanical device that could detect the presence of chocolate, for example. Now, this might be true so we decide to give it a fair hearing. We place a bunch of boxes in front of the device, some having chocolate and some not. If the device works, then it will detect which ones have it. But if the device is only right a number of times that we would expect according to random selection, then we can discredit the device as working. This, again, is simply common sense and "not being a bafoon".

Many people have made the claim you are making, and MANY tests have been done of this nature. Yet, no test that can be reliably repeated has ever been conducted that shows anything more than random chance. One common response to this is to say that "what I detect can't be determined outright to be true or false and is more subjective in nature".

This would be like a person who claims to have a device that can detect, not chocolate, but happiness - and, at ANY distance. Therefore, when you try to have happy people in boxes, and the device turns out not to work, he can say that it was picking up happy people elsewhere. These subjective sorts of "detectors", be they feelings OR devices, have two possible realities...

1) They don't work

2) They work, but because what they determine is so subjective, we can never use this information reliably, or be able to tell anything significant from it. Furthermore, because of this subjective nature, we can never tell if #1 or #2 is the case!

Now, this is not the first time I have made these points. Please don't say that we "act as though you didn't say anything" again.

quote:

---

In one thread I described an underlying sensitivity that precedes all human awareness functions, a very basic sensitivity of the human which appears to permeate our system. I tried to explain how the senses (which "feel" light and sound)

---

If that were true, then there would be people who could tell you when lights were on or off when blindfolded by an impartial observer and in controlled conditions, and they could get it right more than 50% of the time on a repeatable basis. So far, the only tests claimed to do so have had flaws in the way they were conducted, with such things as having physical contact with someone who could see the light, or having the light give off heat. And, when asked to repeat the results under observation of others they fail. To think this is not true requires that you believe there is a massive glbal consiracy to keep this information unknown, that has been going on for centuries. You'll have better luck convincing me against materialism.

quote:

---

I tried to explain how this "base sensitivity" is a fundamentally neutral level of sensitivity that is anchored in the central nervous system, and which takes on layer upon layer of conditioning as life proceeds to eventually become the personality and mind. But at the root of it, behind it all, the original neutral feeling remains intact.

No materialist understood.

---

Correction: no materialist agreed. I understand completely. And I also understand why you are irrational to believe this.

quote:

---

I believe they didn’t because incessant reduction combined with devotion to materialist philosophy creates disassociation from one’s base sensitivity.

---

I too experience "feelings" about things from time to time. I take special note of times when I have such feeings and they turn out not to be true. I do this because the nomal human inclination is to remember the "hits" and disregard the "misses". This creates the impression that you are right more often than was actually true. This is why, when these things are measured, such people are baffled as to why they couldn't do what they thought they could. You once said, "I rely on my intuition and it has NEVER failed me". If I followed you around with a camera and recorded it, I think the actual success rate of your intuition would suprise you.

To get back to your point though, I do not have a lack of such feeling, but I see it for what it is and do not conduct revisionist history and wishful thinking to convince myself it means more than it does.

quote:

---

Whole-view Challenged

The whole-view is a contemplative attempt to maintain a sense of everything that exists without giving special attention to the “parts” that are within the whole. But the whole is not just a mental perspective. For it to have any connection to reality that “sense of everything” must have an experiential component, and guess how one experiences the whole? By feeling it. Since materialists cannot imagine any other sort of feeling than emotion, this is the major thinking area their feeling ineptness robs from them.

Whole-view contemplation is not in competition with reduction, but instead is a different sort of deliberation altogether. It is funny to try to explain what you mean by holistic contemplation to a reducing materialist because they seem to think you mean the whole-view of a “part.” They might say there is the whole of a lamp, for instance, and then there are the parts that compose the whole lamp. It seems inconceivable to them to feel (as defined) the total of reality when contemplating.

---

I do have a "whole-view" of all of reality, but it is based on evidence and logic. What you are doing is constructing a dogma that will allow you to discredit all opposition to your ideas on some other basis than the arguments you are being presented with. You are giving yourself permission to say, "oh well, if I can't seem to answer that or he doesn't agree with me, I can just chalk it up to him being inable to grasp the whole-view because of his situation". You may be able to convince yourself of this, but it won't fly with me.

quote:

---

A Narrow Philosophical Self Education

Habitually reductionist, separated from their base sensitivity, part-obsessed and blind to the whole-view, they decide what to study. Nothing makes sense to them except empirically-supported materialistic concepts, so they study that which strengthens their ability to understand materialism. Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

---

Each of these things are dismissed on their own grounds, for their own reasons. (I by the way believe in consciousness and free will out of that list, as does every materialist I know). As explained above, prove your detector works and I'll revisit the dismissed. I'm sorry you'r such an enemy of rationality and common sense but I find they've served humanity and myself well.

quote:

---

Like all religions, their zealous devotion to a belief system comes to supersede the search for truth,

---

It is precisely the search for Truth which is why we must follow these guidlines. What you propose leads to self-delusion and fantasy.

quote:

---

Premature Logic Leaps

The belief that materialistic philosophy can account for everything, forces materialists to provide explanations for the most profound stuff in creation. Life is chemistry-complexity, so is consciousness. The origin of the universe is a fluctuations in nothingness, humans are robots.

---

I thought we "dismissed" consciousness? In any case, these are not "leaps" but rather the simplest most logical explanation given the information we have at present. As new information comes in the door, we may adjest these conclusions. If you want your information to come in the door, you'll need to show that its TRUE.

And, by the way, humans are not robots - they have the ability to make choices. None of that contradicts materialism. Materialism is not equal to determinism (although many people may be both). Your use of stark and empty terminology to create a feeling of hopelessness is yet another example of your distorted view, misunderstanding of materialism, and anything but a search for Truth.

My view includes morality, eithics, meaning, joy, happiness in living, and a lot fo other things. You won't get very far by trying to artificially tack on every negative connotation to materialism that you mistakingly associate it with.

quote:

---

Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe!

No thanks, that is religion pure and simple.

---

We do not say "believe". We say, this is what we think because it seems like the most likely conclusion, given the information we currently have. Those who claim to have a better model present no reliable evidence and simply try to nitpick much more solid theories as a substitute for providing anything which even comes close to being as supported.

quote:

---

Conclusion

Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to something other than truth-seeking.. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

---

Wrong. Mystics can't think properly because THEY are too concerned with wanting their fantasy world to be real than to actually seek the truth. They then get pissy with those who ask them to prove their wild assertions and berate science, materialism, and basic common sense in order to try and do anything to deflect from the glaring errors of their position.

quote:

---

As I’ve suggested before, why not open up to all forms of evidence and knowledge? Why be concerned about whether or not data supports a god, vital force, or consciousness? The truth is the truth, and it can only help to know it, no matter how it turns out to be. Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

---

We are not concerned with "whether or not data supports" this or that. If data supposrt something greater than anything else - THIS is what we will go with. In fact, this is exactly HOW such conclusions were reached. You ask, why not open up to all forms of evidence and knowledge? We do. We are open to every form of evidence and knowledge that is known to exist. What you talk about is not evidence or knowledge - it is folklore and superstition, the exact opposite. I have already explained the difference above.

quote:

---

In the meantime, what shall we do with materialists? Deprogramming? Sensitivity training? A cattle prod? No, I suppose we better love them so they don’t abandon we whole-view thinkers who can’t figure out how to get from point SR to point QM without their invaluable assistance.

---

And in the meantime you can thank us materialists throughout history for your food, shelter, medical care, cars, and the computer you typed this message on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jammieg:
I believe the materialist is basically a logician/mathematician type that is concerned with viewing the world through a fine microscope and often misses the big picture that the intuitionist sees with a grand telescope. Both are just as blind when they only practice one way of thinking. . . . without gut feelings or intuition to guide reason one might never see the whole pointalist painting for being to close examining the dots, and the intuitionist might never be able to appreciate the pretty dots being too caught up in the beauty of the whole painting.

---

Thank you for posting.

Good point. I agree completely that an intuitionist usually can’t make sense because he doesn’t know how to allow facts to bridle his intuition, even though intuition might overall be guiding the course of an investigation. At a forum full of intuitionists I’d be trying to get them plant their feet and adhere to what is known.

The sort of materialist I described for this thread is no different from a raging intuitionist as far as I can see. They are so grounded that buried would be a better term to describe their perspective. In materialists camps, the radicals’ attitude is rarely one of openness except to the methods they are employing to secure material evidence. Suggest that they might want to develop their intuitive sense more . . . well, read DT Strain’s response to me.

In the world of “- ists,” the genuine truth seeker, who is open to and on the lookout for anything enlightening, no matter how it conflicts with one’s beliefs, is the rarest bird. Absolutely exceptional.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
First let me admit my title was meant to torment materialists a bit, but good naturedly. I am hoping to have a debate to determine if the materialist stance allows one the full range of information available for reasoning. Also, my "list" of reasons below represent what I consider the worst practices/beliefs of materialism; it is purposely taunting because I hope that those who really look at things that way will try to defend their position. In any case, no offense intended.

I am speaking chiefly to those materialists who use science to justify their position that matter and mechanics can account for the entirety of existence. I think most materialists sincerely believe what they propose, and I will assume that for this critique. I ask you to assume about me that I am relatively informed about science (for a layperson), and I have no doubt about the effectiveness of science to expose the workings of the physical world.

As has been pointed out in other threads, science itself is a discipline for studying the material world, and those applying science don’t necessarily believe science can answer all questions. I do think it is fair to say that among scientists, there is probably a higher percentage of materialists than in the general population.

However, there are many participating in this philosophical section who exclusively rely on empirical evidence to support a materialistic philosophy. To them it seems science and materialism are synonymous. For this thread, when I talk about materialists I mean such empirically materialistic devotees.

Someone argued in another thread that beliefs, practices and reasoning which deal with God defines religion, but that is not the only definition. Quoting from my unabridged dictionary, religion can also mean, “A cause, principle, or system of tenants held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith . . . a value held to be of supreme importance . . . inspiring zealous devotion.”

As someone who’s studied the religious phenomenon extensively, and tried to avoid getting entangled in any form of it, to me materialists exhibit the characteristics of being religious. The way a fundamentalist might cling to scripture as “proof” of the truth, so too do materialists cling to empiricism as the “way.” If you say anything non-empirical, they quote scripture and verse from some study or piece of empirical evidence they believe proves/indicates the correct way of looking at things. If you say maybe empiricism can’t reveal the whole truth, they quote you more studies and empirical evidence! Their faith seems absolute and, in my opinion, blinded to anything other than what makes it through the empirical materialist filter.

Now, how might this make them unable to think properly? What follows is my list of the worst problems to proper thinking (some concepts on the list are taken from my previous posts):

Reductionist Habituation

The approach of materialists to understanding everything is to take it apart searching for all possible components. If you ask them how does one analyze something indivisible, you get silence. This inability to do any contemplative mental function other than reduction leads to . . .

Disregarding Feeling-knowledge

Relentless reduction seems to disassociate awareness from one’s sensitivity, which is why for a materialist the term “feeling” becomes synonymous with emotion. Apparently materialist thinking robs one of the ability to consider feeling any other way.

No matter how many times you try to explain to a materialist that feeling does not have to be emotions, they reply as though they didn’t hear a word you said. This utterly unsophisticated understanding of feeling leaves those more capable with and knowledgeable about the numerous levels of human sensitivity at loss of how to communicate to such feeling neophytes.

In one thread I described an underlying sensitivity that precedes all human awareness functions, a very basic sensitivity of the human which appears to permeate our system. I tried to explain how the senses (which "feel" light and sound), the emotional system (which is not general sensitivity, but a very specific physical application of sensitivity), our dependence on experience to know, intuition, the intensity with which we seek to feel good (every activity in life seems an effort to feel good or avoid feeling badly), and our ability to develop the rich qualities of appreciation, love, joy and happiness are all examples of our root feeling nature.

I tried to explain how this "base sensitivity" is a fundamentally neutral level of sensitivity that is anchored in the central nervous system, and which takes on layer upon layer of conditioning as life proceeds to eventually become the personality and mind. But at the root of it, behind it all, the original neutral feeling remains intact.

No materialist understood. I believe they didn’t because incessant reduction combined with devotion to materialist philosophy creates disassociation from one’s base sensitivity. That loss of awareness of human base sensitivity leads to being . . .

Whole-view Challenged

The whole-view is a contemplative attempt to maintain a sense of everything that exists without giving special attention to the “parts” that are within the whole. But the whole is not just a mental perspective. For it to have any connection to reality that “sense of everything” must have an experiential component, and guess how one experiences the whole? By feeling it. Since materialists cannot imagine any other sort of feeling than emotion, this is the major thinking area their feeling ineptness robs from them.

Whole-view contemplation is not in competition with reduction, but instead is a different sort of deliberation altogether. It is funny to try to explain what you mean by holistic contemplation to a reducing materialist because they seem to think you mean the whole-view of a “part.” They might say there is the whole of a lamp, for instance, and then there are the parts that compose the whole lamp. It seems inconceivable to them to feel (as defined) the total of reality when contemplating. This inability to feel and contemplate the whole leads to . . .

A Narrow Philosophical Self Education

Habitually reductionist, separated from their base sensitivity, part-obsessed and blind to the whole-view, they decide what to study. Nothing makes sense to them except empirically-supported materialistic concepts, so they study that which strengthens their ability to understand materialism. Everything considered must pass the materialistic test, and that which can’t be justified through such means is discredited, or “dismissed.” The vitalists are dismissed, the soul is dismissed, God is dismissed, consciousness is dismissed, free will is dismissed . . . so that at last materialism becomes religious.

Like all religions, their zealous devotion to a belief system comes to supersede the search for truth, and so when they need but lack evidence to support their case, they practice . . .

Premature Logic Leaps

The belief that materialistic philosophy can account for everything, forces materialists to provide explanations for the most profound stuff in creation. Life is chemistry-complexity, so is consciousness. The origin of the universe is a fluctuations in nothingness, humans are robots.

Okay you say, prove chemistry-complexity is capable of that, demonstrate AI can lead to an awareness that can take charge of itself. We will one day, they say, but for now believe because we have all this proof of competency on our side. You might say, we don’t doubt how matter works, but when it comes to questions of our origin, life and consciousness, you are not proving a single thing, yet you want our faith. Believe, they say, believe!

No thanks, that is religion pure and simple.

Conclusion

Materialists can’t think properly because they are committed to something other than truth-seeking.. This commitment must necessarily exclude all non-material evidence, and so will never allow them to think with all possible information. Every bit of reasoning about the nature of reality will be molded by the shape their minds are already in.

As I’ve suggested before, why not open up to all forms of evidence and knowledge? Why be concerned about whether or not data supports a god, vital force, or consciousness? The truth is the truth, and it can only help to know it, no matter how it turns out to be. Ultimately, the only thing that comes from blind commitment to a philosophy is ignorance.

In the meantime, what shall we do with materialists? Deprogramming? Sensitivity training? A cattle prod? No, I suppose we better love them so they don’t abandon we whole-view thinkers who can’t figure out how to get from point SR to point QM without their invaluable assistance.

. . . Les

Left and right then overall.

---

I believe you have overlooked one tiny detail when you decided that materialists cannot "think properly".

The only way you could come up with that statement (and assume it is a proper way to think) is by way of material vehicles like....... your brain...... your fingers.... your keyboard.... your computer...... the internet..... the body supporting your brain.... the chair your body is supported by.... etc...

These items are considered material by materialists and by non-materialists alike.

The fact that you utilize these material vehicles to voice an opinion actually makes you a materialist... in my opinion.

If you were a minimalist and non-materialist you'd be sitting in a cave just outside of Old Delhi somewhere... hoping that some follower would bring you a scrape of food so you could stay alive a little longer to revel in the idea of non-materialism.

quote:

---

Iwsleeth:
In the world of “- ists,” the genuine truth seeker, who is open to and on the lookout for anything enlightening, no matter how it conflicts with one’s beliefs, is the rarest bird. Absolutely exceptional.

---

Yes, that's what any enlightened person strives for. But this is not what you suggest. When one looks at the details of your argument, you are suggesting something much more "open" than merely openness to that which contradicts one's current understanding.

Tell me what the difference is between what you describe above, and the person who is gullible - so open to any and all ascertions that comes his way that he is incapable of filtering out sense from nonsense? Take a person like that and explain to me the difference between this person and what you are suggesting?

Without any sort of epistemological standards for truth and non-truth this is what you get. And the presence of these standards is NOT synonimous with being "close minded to anything that contradicts your current view". How simple it would be to prove your wild claims if this were true - but it isn't.

Not only am I open to contradictory claims, but I am open to claims that my epistemological standards THEMSELVES may be incorrect. All I ask is for convincing logic that leads to such conclusions, and some sort of connection to reality for making these claims. You offer none of this, yet, you are so unwilling to accept the mere possibility that you may be wrong that, rather than looking at my arguments, you orchestrate elaborate models to try and convince yourself that we materialists just 'don't know how to think'.

It is not we who are close minded. I suggest you look at your quote above and then look in the mirror.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carl:
I believe you have overlooked one tiny detail when you decided that materialists cannot "think properly".

The only way you could come up with that statement (and assume it is a proper way to think) is by way of material vehicles like....... your brain...... your fingers.... your keyboard.... your computer...... the internet..... the body supporting your brain.... the chair your body is supported by.... etc...

These items are considered material by materialists and by non-materialists alike.

The fact that you utilize these material vehicles to voice an opinion actually makes you a materialist... in my opinion.

If you were a minimalist and non-materialist you'd be sitting in a cave just outside of Old Delhi somewhere... hoping that some follower would bring you a scrape of food so you could stay alive a little longer to revel in the idea of non-materialism.

---

I thought a materialist was someone who believes that all things are material. I did not think that anyone who "uses" a material thing is a materialist. That would be a stretch and wold make the materialist label pretty useless. Also, a non-materialist is not necessarily someone who believes all things are immaterial. A non-materialists is just someone who does not believe that all things are material. None these labels preclude a person from using material things or not using them.

Also, the idea that materialism has been successful at producing useful things does not mean a materialist has 100% knowledge.

"What is essential here is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fliption:

quote:

---

Originally posted by carl:
I believe you have overlooked one tiny detail when you decided that materialists cannot "think properly".

The only way you could come up with that statement (and assume it is a proper way to think) is by way of material vehicles like....... your brain...... your fingers.... your keyboard.... your computer...... the internet..... the body supporting your brain.... the chair your body is supported by.... etc...

These items are considered material by materialists and by non-materialists alike.

The fact that you utilize these material vehicles to voice an opinion actually makes you a materialist... in my opinion.

If you were a minimalist and non-materialist you'd be sitting in a cave just outside of Old Delhi somewhere... hoping that some follower would bring you a scrape of food so you could stay alive a little longer to revel in the idea of non-materialism.

---

I thought a materialist was someone who believes that all things are material. I did not think that anyone who "uses" a material thing is a materialist. That would be a stretch and wold make the materialist label pretty useless. Also, a non-materialist is not necessarily someone who believes all things are immaterial. A non-materialists is just someone who does not believe that all things are material. None these labels preclude a person from using material things or not using them.

Also, the idea that materialism has been successful at producing useful things does not mean a materialist has 100% knowledge.

"What is essential here is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning."

---

I agree. A materialist will see a dynamic as a result of a material interaction. A non materialist will see a dynamic as a result of other dynamics working together to create another dynamic.

When the materialist realizes that all matter... or material... is actually only composed of energy and waves of energy they must sit back and scratch that material head of theirs. This is a paradox in their world of BMWs and golden facets... servants and marble etc...

But, the fact remains that we do not slip between the molecules and the waves of energy when we hike up to our cave in India. At least, our brain will not let us experience that part of reality. We've become conditioned... over the course of our evolution... to expect and accept a material reality... and that approach as worked, to this point, in favour of our survival as a species... in the material plane.

This does not, however, in any way demonstrate the "100%" knowledge nor is it the end all and be all when it comes to "survival" and existance as a being or consciousness that is a part of this universe.... a working part of this universe. There will always be alternatives to living in the material plane. However, I doubt one can experience the material without being totally involved in it...
or, as Ken Kesey said "you can't get into it without getting some on you."

I agree with your last statement concerning discussion and its ultimate purpose... which is to explore and define meanings in the attempt to establish a common language among those who would discuss these ideas and challenging concepts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DT Strain:
All I ask is for convincing logic that leads to such conclusions, and some sort of connection to reality for making these claims.

---

I don’t know what to say to you. You misrepresent my position incessantly, and then argue against your own distorted vision of stupid ol’ me.

You seem determined to put me at odds with rationality. You condescend to lecture me about studies, science, logic, and evidence apparently thinking you are better informed than me about such issues. Well if so, I haven’t seen it from any demonstration on your part. All you’ve shown me is why science has convinced you of a solely material reality. Is it so hard for you to believe an educated and rational person could study the evidence and come to different conclusions than you? At least I don’t parallel your demand that if I am going to speak about reality I must use materialist language; all I ask of you is that you make sense and consider a wider range of evidence.

While I don’t have the slightest doubt about the effectiveness of science or the need for rationality; I do say that I believe they are only effective with certain aspects of reality. Is that such an outrageous claim to contemplate? If so, why would that be?

Then you represent me (here and in your new thread I’m sure) as a moron who runs around buying into every fanciful idea I stumble upon. You say, “Tell me what the difference is between what you describe above, and the person who is gullible - so open to any and all assertions that comes his way that he is incapable of filtering out sense from nonsense?”

I have claimed I know about something called union, both as a scholar and personally. The practice first attracted my attention because certain (not all) people I studied who practiced it seemed to manifest another kind of consciousness, conscious oneness. They were not superstitious or irrational, and seemed aware of something most others weren’t. If possibly true, what’s not to study? How does thirty years of study and practice equate to gullibility? It doesn’t, but I wouldn't mind telling you what I think of your accusation that I’m a mindless nitwit amounts to.

In response to my studies and personal investigation, you pretend to understand union. What a bunch of horsesh*t. Everything you say in regard to union, from lumping it with superstition, folklore and psychics to saying “MANY tests have been done,” all reveal you are blowing hot air. You have not studied the history of it, you’ve not practiced it, you don’t know it -- you are, in fact, clueless. You are merely trying to discredit me and being lazy about how you go about it. Why don’t you do your homework first? Maybe here, where few know anything about the history of union, you can pretend to know about it, but what does it say about your integrity to try to win a debate that way?

You say, “All I ask is for convincing logic that leads to such conclusions, and some sort of connection to reality for making these claims” while you sit in your laboratory, microscope plugged in, qualitative analysis tests lined up, pad and pencil at the ready. What’s the matter DT, afraid to discover there might be an area of human potential that you have to feel to understand?

Now more than ever I am certain radical materialists can’t think properly. They deceive themselves into believing that anything other than material indications is nonsense, while dismissing those offering contrary opinions as deluded, and thus justify to themselves that the only evidence worthy of consideration is the material sort.

. . . Les

For example, FZ said, “What is intuitively obvious to you is intuitively wrong to others. (The lesson is, avoid intuition!); and DT Strain said, “You once said, ‘I rely on my intuition and it has NEVER failed me.’ If I followed you around with a camera and recorded it, I think the actual success rate of your intuition would surprise you.”

The application of intuition I am speaking of doesn’t fit those characterizations. In other threads I’ve previously quoted both Einstein and Godel recommending intuition as the way to sense undetected truths. While Einstein’s remark was unspecific, for Godel intuition was integral to his investigative approach. He suggested that undiscovered truths were first sensed intuitively, and then made sense of through logic, math, and observation.

Intuition cannot be relied upon mindlessly. For most people who decide to trust it, intuition merely gives one a sense of something, but no details. That “sense” is like a beacon in the distance . . . reaching the point the intuitive beacon signals requires the rigorous steps of research. For example, I might say, “I sense there is a relationship between gravity, magnetism, and the nuclear strong force.” So, what do I do about that?

If I am unskilled or dishonest when using intuition, I will start preaching that the relationship of gravity-magnetism-strong-force is true. If I am as conscientious as Godel, I will begin searching for evidence that supports what I’ve intuited. DT Strain wants to follow me around to see if intuition really serves me as I claim. If he wants to do that, he will have to follow me for a long, long time because I never jump to interpretations about what I intuit when it comes to anything significant. All it is for me is a guide; it is never, ever a basis for quickly deciding the “truth” (except when needing an answer for Trivial Pursuit when I don’t know it).

There is still one more issue regarding intuition, and that is if it can be developed. I’ve suggested that one’s intuition (or, more accurately, one’s overall sensitivity) can be enhanced by learning to turn inward and experience the source of sensitivity that remains intact within humans. In fact, throughout history there have been tens of thousands who’ve undertook just such a realization. What seems to enhance sensitivity is when “conscious oneness” is achieved. I’ve theorized that conscious energy normally fragmented by the operations of the brain is, when integrated, made more sensitive by the union of those fragments. This heightened sensitivity is able to perceive elements of reality denied to fractionated consciousness.

How might one find out if this is true? Through empirical studies which are dependent on multiplicity? No. Each person must learn to experience a degree of conscious oneness, and then perceive and interpret for themselves what might be unavailable to splintered awareness.

. . . Les

2) You say "While I don’t have the slightest doubt about the effectiveness of science or the need for rationality; I do say that I believe they are only effective with certain aspects of reality. Is that such an outrageous claim to contemplate? If so, why would that be?" No, it's not outrageous at all - which is why I said it was perfectly possible. The problem is that, if rationality is not effective on it, and rationality is the only tool we have, then what meaningfully could be proposed about such a thing? You are saying that we have another tool other than rationality (union) and I am saying that I see no reason to believe it in fact IS a real "tool". It either CAN or CAN NOT be proven to be a useful tool. If it were, there would be some way to show it. If not, what's to prevent anyone coming along with any sort of "procedure" and claiming it to be a tool?

3) I do not claim to have practiced union, or to have read a bunch of detailed stuff about it. But I have read all of your posts on it, including that rather lengthy explanation of it, and I am responding only to your claims made here. If there are some other aspects that make them seem less rediculous, please present them and I'll read them. As far as what you've presented here, union suffers from the same faults as the claims as to telepathy, psychic powers, and so on. I'm not saying these are the same things so please don't just point out that they are different and that shows I don't understand union. What I'm saying is that union, as you've presented it here, has all the same philosophical and logical problems.

4) The "intuition" that leads to discoveries is simply a matter of people takeing the facts they know of and making educated guesses. These very often lead to be fruitful investigations, but they never give information that couldn't have been reasonably suspected and deduced by a creative mind given the information at hand. Now, if a cave man were to "intuition" a laser gun that would be different.

lwsleeth, your ideas allow that kind of logical impossibility. You are asking that others accept your word as true. You are stating that those who don't are mentally deficient. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you if you feel insulted, because you are insulting.

Njorl