Why Materialism Is Baloney

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:53 pm

Recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson famously dismissed philosophy as a pointless distraction that should avoided by scientists. I suggest that his point of view not only reflects the hubris we have come to associate with his delivery of the mainstream consensus view but also an uninspected acceptance of materialism as a philosophy. I think that the latter also describes many contributors to this board and this creates for them problems in accounting for the origin of consciousness which is why I opted to post this item in the Human Question sub-forum rather than NIAMI.

The title of this topic is taken from a book by Roberto Kastrup, a former academic and programmer who worked in the area of neural networks. His exposition of monistic idealism and criticism of materialism is one of the most clearly stated and rational approaches I have seen. He both manages to avoid the vague language often associated with non-materialist views and, more importantly, demonstrates that a rational approach and the application of Occam’s Razor show materialism to be a more fantastic proposition than idealism. It is difficult to do justice to an entire book in a single post but I will show an example of Roberto’s argument based on a key passage from the book. This states the progression of an argument in 4 steps.

1. We KNOW we are conscious and we have experience. It is the only thing we can know for sure.

2. We ASSUME that other people have the same experience. This is probably reasonable; it assumes that there are other instances of a phenomenon that we know exists. In the absence of any further assumption it is the position that monistic idealism takes. It assumes that there is nothing outside consciousness. On the other hand...

3. Materialism ASSUMES that there are material objects that exist independent of conscious perception. We could never prove this since we cannot know anything without it entering conscious perception.

4. Further materialism ASSUMES that things which exist outside conscious perception generate conscious perception.

In other words, contrary to logic, materialism assumes that something we can never know produces the only thing that we can know. By the Principle of Parsimony, Occam’s Razor, it multiplies entities unnecessarily to account for the facts and it makes two assumptions neither of which can be verified.

Based on this analysis, Roberto suggests that materialism’s claim of the logical high ground is completely baseless and actually contrary to the facts. It also exposes the lie that the pursuit of science needs to be a materialist one. I’d argue that this single assumption sabotages science’s ability to study the human experience successfully.

This is a link to the book
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:00 am

Thank you for this thread. I am caught up in materialism, and at the same time, being criticized for leaning out of it. Materialists insist that everything is material, and all actions come about in a physical way. What hubris!

I can't say either way. There is just too much evidence for and against. What priority does one place on a piece of evidence?. Who does one listen to for guidance?
What adjustments must be made to the scientific method to introduce non-material investigations.

I listen to evangelists and think, what dick heads. How retarded can one get?
I listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson and think, what a dick head. How retarded can one get?
And it is beliefs of each that produces their dogmatic perspectives. Then I am reminded that brains operate differently in order to accept each belief system. And the opposites probably can't even imagine how the other could come to the conclusions that they have.

We live under the threat of terrorism, religious, social, political , and cultural.
Power of terrorism may be subtle, but it exists, and it shapes actions and thoughts of individuals, cities, countries, and probably the world.

Did I make any sense? :? I am alone in my thoughts, and don't get much feedback, so deal with that also. Terrorism of self doubt. ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:26 pm

Sparky wrote:I can't say either way. There is just too much evidence for and against.


This is the crux, though. What evidence is there for materialism? As I outline above, in the context of science it is that most dangerous of things: an unrecognised assumption. In fact, according to its own dogma, it can not be proved. In the cold light of reason materialism is shown to be no less fantastic than any other religion.

I listen to evangelists and think, what dick heads. How retarded can one get?
I listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson and think, what a dick head. How retarded can one get?


Indeed, Evangelists and an evangelist.

What adjustments must be made to the scientific method to introduce non-material investigations.


Two things occur to me: 1. the recognition that materialism is founded on assumptions additional to those required to acknowledge that everything exists in consciousness and that it does not occupy the rational high ground as a philosophy and from that 2. information can enter consciousness by means other than the 5 senses and a disciplined approach to recognising and recording this needs to be developed.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:31 am

What evidence is there for materialism?


The ability of the most primitive of peoples to provide food and shelter .

The modern machines that provide time and labour savings. ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby SirEyes » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:00 am

If I understood the problem, I'd say materialism is ok for science. The real problem in my view is solipsism...
I mean: as there is no such thing as "science", as we only have data, it's ok that scientific data should be based only on materialistic perceptions. I see nothing wrong with this.
The real problem is to think "if something is not scientifically-materialistically intelligible, then it is not fundamental in drawing conclusions". This would be solipsism, rather than materialism.
And I believe we have a huge amount of solipsism nowadays.

Also, in my view the Occam's razor does not say "choose the theory with least hypothesis". It says not to add a new hypothesis if the present ones will suffice.
Example: my set of hypothesis are A, B, C. If someone has A,B,C,D then it's ok to use Occam (winner: A,B,C). But usually Occam is used between A,B,C and C,D (making C,D the winner). And I see no reason to accept this method when the 2 sets are uncomparable.
I have to admit i never (not a single time) saw the razor used according to my understanding. I only saw it being used as... a hypothesis counter.
According to this, God is the only (singular) truth. :mrgreen:
Isn't it funny how "science" is crammed with religion? :roll:
SirEyes
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:08 pm

tayga wrote:Based on this analysis, Roberto suggests that materialism’s claim of the logical high ground is completely baseless and actually contrary to the facts. It also exposes the lie that the pursuit of science needs to be a materialist one. I’d argue that this single assumption sabotages science’s ability to study the human experience successfully.

This is a link to the book


Interesting.

Few areas of Life (there are others of course) demonstrate the lack of the ability of science to study the human experience better than people such as “Brainman” - “The Real Superhumans” – “The Story of DJ" and the like. In typical materialist fashion the ‘anomalies’ are suspected as being the result of some activity of the physical brain. Yet, no one has demonstrated the brain to wholly constitute of the faculty of Mind and/or Consciousness. Usually, individuals displaying such talents are scurried off to places for further study to commune amongst others displaying such abilities and taken out of the public eye and Mind. This falsely gives materialist sway in attempting to infuse a doctrine that still doesn’t know what the Nature “matter” is.

Materialism generally claims that “nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.” So one finds the “breaking” of “symmetry” to be “spontaneous” as opposed to being attributed to Direction and/or Purpose. One finds the location of an electron to be probabilistic. ‘Systems’ organize out of sheer happenstance implying that Existence arose likewise. Yet the “laws” they find in Nature are named as such owing to the same Purposeful Organizing Principle being naturally present in the Minds of Mankind. Any Intelligences ascribed to Nature and its Laws is considered folly for the imagination. The hierarchy of Evolution is ruled by nothing other than animalistic survival of the fittest brute force. Materialism is a very primitive unevolved and contradictory perspective imho.

Is it any wonder then that materialism is now touting “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”? – having now come to the same conclusion as Aristotle and others who debated with Democritus?

In supposing that void exists, the atomists deliberately embraced an apparent contradiction, claiming that ‘what is not’ exists. Apparently addressing an argument by Melissus, a follower of Parmenides, the atomists paired the term for ‘nothing’ with what it negates, ‘thing,’ and claimed that—in a phrase typical of the atomists—the one ‘no more’ exists than the other (DK 67A6). Schofield (2002) argues that this particular phrase originated with Democritus and not his teacher Leucippus. By putting the full (or solid) and the void ontologically on a par, the atomists were apparently denying the impossibility of void.

(...)

According to different reports, Democritus ascribed the causes of things to necessity, and also to chance. Probably the latter term should be understood as ‘absence of purpose’ rather than a denial of necessity (Barnes 1982, pp. 423–6). Democritus apparently recognized a need to account for the fact that the disorderly motion of individual distinct atoms could produce an orderly cosmos in which atoms are not just randomly scattered, but cluster to form masses of distinct types. He is reported to have relied on a tendency of ‘like to like’ which exists in nature: just as animals of a kind cluster together, so atoms of similar kinds cluster by size and shape. He compares this to the winnowing of grains in a sieve, or the sorting of pebbles riffled by the tide: it is as if there were a kind of attraction of like to like (DK 68B164). Although this claim has been interpreted differently (e.g. Taylor 1999b p. 188), it seems to be an attempt to show how an apparently ordered arrangement can arise automatically, as a byproduct of the random collisions of bodies in motion (Furley 1989, p. 79). No attractive forces or purposes need be introduced to explain the sorting by the tide or in the sieve: it is probable that this is an attempt to show how apparently orderly effects can be produced without goal-directioned forces or purpose. – Democritus: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Today's materialism is the same doctrine under new garb. Save for modern day trappings materialism hasn't evolved one iota.

The opening credits of the movie Forest Gump symbolized the materialist doctrine with the backdrop of a feather simply blown where so ever in the wind. Likewise did the main character, Forest, have no direction. He was simply a victim of circumstance vicariously thrown hither and yon for absolutely no apparent reason. Forest mindlessly ran in a constant attempt to escape the necessity of giving his own life Direction and Purpose just as materialist run from the very concepts themselves as being an existent Guiding the Functions that they refer to as the Laws of Nature observed to be operating without ‘Their’ constantly paradoxical and hubris laden consent.

We’ve nothing offered but probability of location and asserting that all is relative. One only ‘sees’ a “particle” as a haze; nothing definite exist at a particle’s location save that provided from an orders of magnitude larger perspective. “Matter” becomes an illusion, one for which ‘they’ve’ been trying to ferret out the mystery of by smashing quanta together for decades now with no answer. “Maya” was name that a certain actual Philosophy gave to “matter” and as many are well aware it means “Illusion”. That this is born out through the particle physics suggest that Materialism is a doctrine of appearances. The nature of the “Forces” themselves are likewise unknown and remain unseen until the activities of illusive “matter” reveal a fraction of their Presence.

So, we have something unseen ("Forces") the presence of which is only revealed by the interpretation of 'objects' ("Particles")that don't really seem to have specific location of spatial extent. How can there be a ‘Materialist’ or ‘Materialism’ when, despite all advancements, not a one of them knows what ‘Material Matter’ actually is? While afflicted and conflicted within the confines of ‘Their’ own contradiction(s) ‘they’ then what to ‘Tell’ someone else what is and/or isn’t the case with regard to Existence?

Denied.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:08 am

Thanks for an excellent post, Solar. You raise enough points to start half a dozen threads.

The subject of savants, acquired knowledge and languages on the one hand and the consistent reports of expanded, yes expanded, consciousness associated with NDEs, asphyxia, psychotropic drugs and meditation, for example, all point to non-local consciousness independent of brains and bodies but possibly focused on them. A significant minority of people have had experiences of this nature yet are encouraged to mistrust the one thing they can know is real, their experience, because the material doctrine in which we are raised cannot explain it and therefore denies its validity. This is the insidious effect of materialism and characterises the absurdity I described above; the promotion of an idea over the reality it purports to explain.

In his epic work, The Master and his Emissary, Iain McGilchrist stresses the value of the ‘right brain associated’ mode of consciousness in creating and understanding metaphor as a means of grasping (a left brain concept) the intangible by reframing it in terms of experience lived by the body. The Greek word metaphor, itself a metaphor, suggests carrying a concept from one place to another, the imagined to the experienced, as a means to achieve understanding whereupon the metaphor is discarded and the understanding is applied to the idea. Materialism exemplifies the ‘left brain associated’ mode of consciousness which does not get metaphor (or irony, for similar reasons) and tends to reify concepts while disregarding that which must be expressed as metaphor to understand it.

Thus, in materialism, fields are objects, forces are real, virtual particles are real particles and consciousness, the one thing that is real to us, is a mere concept.

On matter, I find it telling that Alan Watts, a student of humanities, knew in the 1970s that Physics could not distinguish between the behaviour and nature of matter. Even today, when asked to explain matter physics offers plenty of descriptions of the patterns it takes and the behaviours it adopts but we still do not know what it actually is. For some reason, clear thinking about scientific concepts is not common in scientists and questions like this are simply not addressed or pursued with purpose.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Solar » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:58 pm

tayga wrote:The subject of savants, acquired knowledge and languages on the one hand and the consistent reports of expanded, yes expanded, consciousness associated with NDEs, asphyxia, psychotropic drugs and meditation, for example, all point to non-local consciousness independent of brains and bodies but possibly focused on them. A significant minority of people have had experiences of this nature yet are encouraged to mistrust the one thing they can know is real, their experience, because the material doctrine in which we are raised cannot explain it and therefore denies its validity. This is the insidious effect of materialism and characterises the absurdity I described above; the promotion of an idea over the reality it purports to explain.


Agreed. And well stated Tayga. That Consciousness may be “non-local” or ‘localized’ is still an emerging recognition to some aspects of today’s science as seen with the new terminology expressing things known of old using terminology appropriate for those days and cultures. Needless to say the evidences for this is a growing thing. For some, pondering the possibility has begun and for others the evidences have already established the fact.

Meanwhile, materialism will deny, discourage, and attempt to convince that such evidences do not speak to what the experiences are actually evidences of. As a result one can find what only seems to be a perplexing mixture coalescing around these matters. An example of this (and this is to only cite an example) would be here:

The Institute for the Scientific Study of Consciousness” and the timbre of references on its “Links” page.

If you watch the news coverage as conveyed by the reporter the doctor is not interested in those evidences when they are presented in the form unique to an adult individual’s particular established leanings. The doctor is instead pursuing these evidences from those least affected by such established influences. Materialism has the approach just as you've surmised wherein there is the lack of the ability to understand the multiplicity of expressions which aid in the experience of Expanded Consciousness.

tayga wrote:In his epic work, The Master and his Emissary, Iain McGilchrist stresses the value of the ‘right brain associated’ mode of consciousness in creating and understanding metaphor as a means of grasping (a left brain concept) the intangible by reframing it in terms of experience lived by the body. The Greek word metaphor, itself a metaphor, suggests carrying a concept from one place to another, the imagined to the experienced, as a means to achieve understanding whereupon the metaphor is discarded and the understanding is appliedto the idea. Materialism exemplifies the ‘left brain associated’ mode of consciousness which does not get metaphor (or irony, for similar reasons) and tends to reify concepts while disregarding that which must be expressed as metaphor to understand it.


Correct, and beautifully expressed. It is necessary to contrast the old and the new in hopes of constructively dialoging about the scope of this. This was the approach in works, for example, by Schawller de Lubicz. The assessments and Insights garnered by way of interpreting and reasoning about Knowledge and Understandings of old from Metaphor and the Symbolic.

It was recognized that Nature undergoes cyclical transformations long ago and certain ancient Symbols 'carry' this understanding. Today one says that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form", a reiteration of things known long before the modern era to be sure. The recognition of Forces as a Living and Present activities was conveyed of old through certain Symbolic Iconography, or Ideograms. The symbols could adorn the temples in certain ways, the Experience observing the Principle in Nature, as a actual Living condition, would then be incorporated in writings. To the one who garnered the Insights as an actual experience of recognition ("I am That"); the moment of actually *experiencing* the Principle active in Nature as a Living condition was to 'commune' with Expanded Consciousness. A One to One communication. A materialist on the other hand, having later transliterated the symbols and writings from the uncovered temple would assess things as just so much superstition.

So yes, the metaphor, either as symbol and/or analogy may be discarded as the Knowledge and Understanding is now Hermetically sealed. That is more along the lines of what that means of old and the 'way' that it means it. Sealed in Consciousness as an aspect in Knowledge and Understanding that has become an integral part of one's Being integrating with The Whole. Thus, one of the purposes and definite Functions of Myth and the Rituals that accompany them is to 'carry' or 'embody' an immense scope of Knowledge and Understanding as relates Expanded Consciousness which, as you clearly understand, "must be expressed as metaphor to understand it."

The scope of what may be conveyed via moments of clarity and Insight via Expanded Consciousness as may be garnered from the Symbolic and Metaphor of Myth (not that there weren't actual people Living the Examples, this too must be done) can fill volumes, upon volumes, of books - which is what is observed in Sacred Writ and related commentaries thought history.

Likewise with the experiences being had today by those undergoing a variety of circumstances that are inducing non-localized Expansions in Consciousness. Not as some charlatan might promise (this is obviously something to be ever watchful over) but actual flat lines in medical institutions well equipped with full technology and Individuals firmly qualified to declare whether or not someone is clinically and legally "dead". What aspect of Consciousness could survive to such extent that an innocent of that age describes their own resuscitation and the specific location of a stray blue tennis shoe on a third floor window ledge? - and documented by qualified people.

Despite not believing the doctor wants to understand. That man is a true Scientist; he's following the evidence wheresoever it may lead. The other chap shown countering in that coverage is merely an opinionated materialist muttering the usual. As many know there are indeed other such examples of these kinds of things. How many doctors might never speak out and are quite accustomed to seeing these kinds of things is anyone's guess.

tayga wrote:Thus, in materialism, fields are objects, forces are real, virtual particles are real particles and consciousness, the one thing that is real to us, is a mere concept.

On matter, I find it telling that Alan Watts, a student of humanities, knew in the 1970s that Physics could not distinguish between the behaviour and nature of matter. Even today, when asked to explain matter physics offers plenty of descriptions of the patterns it takes and the behaviours it adopts but we still do not know what it actually is. For some reason, clear thinking about scientific concepts is not common in scientists and questions like this are simply not addressed or pursued with purpose.


The analysis of this are beginning for those who are more prone to needing the scientific approach. Obviously, and regardless as demonstrated in the above video, there will be materialist attempting to refute, disparage, and dismiss despite detailed the accounts, statistical analysis, and assessments. This is why it is so very important for Individuals to conduct there own research and come to their own conclusions about these matters. "Matter" has been poked and prodded to such extent that, as member Seasmith once conveyed, there is difficulty determining particle from fields. So, we move to definitions and the renormalization of Infinity. Materialist try to 'renormalize' Consciousness as just a concept called "the observer".
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:43 pm

Materialism isn't the root of the problem, its atomic philosophy. As long as we keep atomic philosophy we will never understand gravitation or magnetism.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:23 am

JeffreyW wrote:Materialism isn't the root of the problem, its atomic philosophy. As long as we keep atomic philosophy we will never understand gravitation or magnetism.



:? Is this what you mean? :?
Atomic Philosophy: The hypothesis of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus, that the world is composed of a congeries of atoms, or particles of matter so minute as to be incapable of further diminution.

Of course it is quite impossible even to think of a portion of matter which has not an upper and under side, with some breadth and thickness.

“According to Democritus, the expounder of the Atomic Theory of matter, images composed of the finest atoms floated from the object to the mind.” —McCosh: Psychological Cognitive Powers , p. 23.

Read more: Atomic Philosophy | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/br ... z37Y9Wqopa
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Solar » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:25 pm

A few more considerations about the Non-Locality of Consciousness and “Why materialism is Baloney”:

Yes, that is the same Atomist Philosophy. Today’s modern era is severely short on concept and language to express some of these things as relates Consciousness. The Old Science, regardless of the culture through which this knowledge and understanding (in the form of Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual) comes, is quite hearty with both concept and language. Materialism has discredited and lead to the un-education of individuals towards the meanings of the old concepts and languages simply out of neglect. For many the old has fallen (or was ‘pushed’) into superstition and is disregarded leaving a yearning to be filled as indicated by the burning questions so many people have regarding Continuance. The old ways may be resuscitated at any time an individual decides to undertake research and study especially via contrasting different Mythologies.

A while ago someone referenced the work of the following website which also takes a scientific approach this question based on evidence:

The Self-Consciousness Mind

There seem to be members on this forum who are familiar with the Older Works and related Philosophy but being that this is a science based forum the tendency is to dialog about ‘science’. The topic these days of Non-locality with regard to Consciousness would probably fare much better as a topic because it now has the prerequisite timbre of being a scientific discipline as indicated above. Of a certainty though, those already versed in the Old can metaphorically ‘see’ the parallels between the two. If you take a look at the first very short video referenced by StephanR here for example ...:

Thales, Anaximander and Anaximnes

… you’ll find the pertinent importance as Pierre Grimes references something called “Philosophical Counseling”. Someone named Schuster uses this to “critique, challenge the very language...” used. Similarly, variations between cultures, their Myths, Symbols, Ritual, and metaphor and language “carry” intrinsic Principles that often succumb to preferential expression as opposed to ‘The Message’ that each one has to offer. In other words we’re tripping over the various expressions while missing the meaning. Unify them instead.

… metaphor, suggests carrying a concept from one place to another, the imagined to the experienced, as a means to achieve understanding whereupon the metaphor is discarded and the understanding is applied to the idea. Materialism exemplifies the ‘left brain associated’ mode of consciousness which does not get metaphor (or irony, for similar reasons) and tends to reify concepts while disregarding that which must be expressed as metaphor to understand it.


Lets keep the above in mind again. Noting a part of the history of materialism as presented before, definitely with and after Democritus, and continuing on today there came furtherance of materialism with Georges Lemaître:

… Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… - Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang


Consider “the mode of Consciousness which does not get metaphor” and this theory of Lemaître’s which has at its foci an ‘object’ called a “primeval atom”. Now, lets move over to the Esoteric/Metaphysical aspect which posits a similar Entity known as “Permanent Atoms”. It should be born in mind that this concept preceded Lemaitre’s physical version through works known to be definitely Esoteric, or Metaphysical, and these kind of works not only preexisted but also coexisted with the development of Lemaitre’s idea. Note the following:

1. The purpose of the permanent atoms.

The three permanent atoms are in themselves centres of force, or those aspects of the personality which hold hid the fires of substance, or of objectivity; it cannot be too strongly pointed out at this juncture that, in considering the threefold man in the three worlds, we are dealing with substance which (in connection with logoic manifestation) is considered the dense physical. Alice Bailey: Treatise on Cosmic Fire, II. The Nature of the Permanent Atoms


On the one hand, by way of the Esotric, this concept might be said to serve as metaphor for the individualization of Consciousness. Clearly though, the Esoteric works makes definite reference to “centres of force” and That which is “hold hid the fires of substance” as modalities of Consciousness. On the other hand materialism as presented by Lemaître’s version, in typical fashion, strips Consciousness out of the equation such that the schism exemplified in Lemaître’s quote supposedly “… leaves the materialist free to deny transcendental…” Instead, they ponder a “point source”, an ‘object’ of “matter” that eludes their prying. We then have individuals exhibiting evidences for the non-localization of Consciousness as opposed to Consciousness being ‘centered’ on, or residing with, or in, a physical body – or not.

Where did Lemaître get the idea to arbitrarily place an ‘object’ into a ‘space’ and thereby provide materialism with a ‘thing’ to train their attention on? Coincidence? I suspect not. Now materialism had a reinforced conceptual ‘thing’ to chase and toss at proponents of Non-locality. Particle physics is still chasing it. In Esoteric ideations the condition of a ‘thing’ is the result of a differentiations in Consciousness. Yet, long ago the “atom”, which had been thought to be the most fundamental indivisible ‘thing’, had been subdivided into a myriad of other constituents - it’s supposed “permanence” vanquished. Smaller still the “electron” lost its ‘fundamental’ status having been supposedly “Split into Quasi particles”. ‘Where’ is either the strictly physical “Primeval Atom” of Lemaitre’ or the “Permanent Atom” of the Esoteric located?? Did Lemaître demonstrate “the mode of Consciousness which does not get metaphor”?

For materialism, and materialist, the situation has significantly worsened. Why? We’ve likewise not seen any supposed smaller than an atom “black hole”. These supposed ‘objects’ have completely traversed the physicality of a supposed indivisible and fundamental ‘permanent object’ of any kind. Instead, we now have a “hole”. A “hole” is not a physical condition; it’s the absence of same. There are ‘electron holes’ (positrons/Dirac) and there are “black holes” covering orders of magnitudes of 'space'. They come in so many varieties Stephen Crothers bats them around relentlessly. It appears that once again materialism physically contradicts is very own doctrine by positing a non-'thing' as a real 'thing'. Yet, these are the proponents running around telling you, the reader, what is and/or isn't superstition when there is continually mounting scientific evidence to the contrary regarding the nature of Continuance.

These are thoughts for consideration.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:54 pm

Solar wrote:The analysis of [the nature of matter] are beginning for those who are more prone to needing the scientific approach. Obviously, and regardless as demonstrated in the above video, there will be materialist attempting to refute, disparage, and dismiss despite detailed the accounts, statistical analysis, and assessments. This is why it is so very important for Individuals to conduct there own research and come to their own conclusions about these matters. "Matter" has been poked and prodded to such extent that, as member Seasmith once conveyed, there is difficulty determining particle from fields. So, we move to definitions and the renormalization of Infinity. Materialist try to 'renormalize' Consciousness as just a concept called "the observer".


Since I wrote my last comment,it really struck me that the model we choose to describe the physical world becomes the metaphor we use to understand what is behind it, if anything. It occurred to me that Big Bang, EU and aether models imply different things about the principle behind the metaphor and it is hardly surprising that a Jesuit priest conceived of the BB whereas EU speaks of fractal self-similarity, two principles and connectedness, and the aether model says immanence and pervasiness. Of all the spiritual works I read the Kybalion still impresses me most and I see principles such as "As above so below; as below so above" in fractals but also in the concept of metaphor, "All is mind" in the aether, and the principles of vibration, gender and polarity gloriously reflected in EU. If my understanding of philosophy is sound, Western religion (Big Bang) is a dualism which adds to materialism a separate spiritual realm whereas EU and aether models speak to a more Eastern or Idealistic conception which returning to the OP, more philosophically sound.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Solar, I posted the last comment in haste and had not read your much deeper treatment of the fundamental concepts above. It is clear, though, that we are addressing the same thing. In philosphical terms, what I would call the cognitive dissonance inherent in LeMaitre's parallel realities, formally called substance dualism, is probably even more absurd than pure materialism although it at least admits morality.

Returning to the mode of consciousness that does not understand metaphor; it is instructive to note that both Kastrup, an Idealist, and McGilchrist, who I would characterise as a nearly-apostate materialist see materialism (Kastrup) and the present dominance of left-brain thinking (McGilchrist) as a very serious threat to the well-being and prosperity of human society. In my opinion, they take a broader view of the trend evident in science and in particular cosmology and particle physics, and that is recognised by followers of EU ideas, which increasingly tends to dissociate thinking from experience. This is a philosophical position adopted by a school of thought that is almost entirely oblivious to the fact that it has any philosophy. If science were a human being under analysis by a psychiatrist it would be diagnosed with a dissociative disorder bordering on schizophrenia.

I wonder what Velikovsky would have made of the parallels between dissociation and dissociated heavenly bodies or even dissociated atoms.

Students of the history of consciousness put the ascendancy of analytical, self-reflective thought with Greek philosophers after Heraclitus. These were the men, in particular Parmenides and Leucippos, who first gave us both the roots of materialism and atomic theory and to my mind there is no coincidence in the metaphor arising with that mode of thought. What is even more interesting, though, is the present momentum to reject these ideas and evidence of a drive to transcend this model to ones which speak of fluidity, connectedness and immanence.

Might we and our science be growing up?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:13 pm

Tayga

Both your last two post offer quite a lot with regard to the various ways and manners each pursuit of Knowledge and Understanding approaches the quest. It is quite a nice and concise assessment of how different approaches “imply different things about the principle behind the metaphor”. Hence, we see in the various pursuits, whether with the BB, the Superfluid proposal, the EU and/or other quest, these ‘living metaphors’ (just as in days of old) eluding to the Nature of That which lay “hold hid the fires of substance”. The differences in the overall approach of each try to speak to “principles and connectedness” in their own unique way.

And they are interesting approaches: The EU having put forth a position ‘naturally aligned’ with Nature (“electricity”) resonates with the Natural Philosopher in each. For who hasn’t experienced lightning in Nature? Some proponents of the BB on the other hand purposefully seek to separate itself from the entirety of all things Philosophical. Yet, its impetus, as put forward by Lemaître and sanctioned by Einstein, fully uses a variation (“permanent atoms”) of the very same Esoteric Philosophy that some of its proponents seek to expunge. Bereft of Cosmogony and Philosophy had materialism then naught to do but attempt to confiscate whilst severing Consciousness as coexistent impetus during Cosmogenesis?

There exist no society that did not, and does not, have at is foundation a Philosophy, a Mythos of Cosmogenesis or Cosmology, and an exemplified ‘Way’ or ‘Path’ of beneficent and constructive qualities to foster a striving for the self-actualization of one’s potential. Not in terms of material success of course but in terms of The Mental Transmutation:

"Transmutation" is a term usually employed to designate the ancient art of the transmutation of metals--particularly of the base metals into gold. The word "Transmute" means "to change from one nature, form, or substance, into another; to transform" (Webster). And accordingly, "Mental Transmutation" means the art of changing and transforming mental states, forms, and conditions, into others. So you may see that Mental Transmutation is the "Art of Mental Chemistry," if you like the term--a form of practical Mystic Psychology.

But this means far more than appears on the surface. Transmutation, Alchemy, or Chemistry on the Mental Plane is important enough in its effects, to be sure, and if the art stopped there it would still be one of the most important branches of study known to man. But this is only the beginning. – Kybalion


Proponents of materialism attempt to ‘empty’ as superstition the Esoteric Philosophies inherent in the various Symbols, Rites, Rituals, Cosmogenesis and Mythologies of an entire world and ‘replace’ it with a strictly physical interpretation of Existence. Morality is considered relative, existence itself is considered purposelessly random, amidst the Laws of Nature speaking to the contrary, leaving rank intelligence to constitute the “fittest”. For several Individuals this doctrine as had its say and it has left many wanting.

Students of the history of consciousness put the ascendancy of analytical, self-reflective thought with Greek philosophers after Heraclitus. These were the men, in particular Parmenides and Leucippos, who first gave us both the roots of materialism and atomic theory and to my mind there is no coincidence in the metaphor arising with that mode of thought. What is even more interesting, though, is the present momentum to reject these ideas and evidence of a drive to transcend this model to ones which speak of fluidity, connectedness and immanence.

Might we and our science be growing up?


Indeed growth is always present. We oft see through a glass darkly such that what might appear to be retrograde motion is actually still an advancement. Currently the theories posit no connectedness with that most poignant of synthesis "As above so below; as below so above" for materialism denies Consciousness for all but Mankind and a rudimentary form for the animal kingdom. None of the Ancient Ways, including their Cosmogonies, do this. As the various lineages of the Hermetic Tradition ensconced within each Sacred Tradition inform, all other Cosmogonies integrate Immanence as an inherent potential transcendence latent, or evolving, if not yet manifest within each Individual. The experiences of Non-local Consciousness speaks to this.

It is always up to the Individual. That scientific evidence now exist with experiences of Continuance what will each Individual do to integrate the significance of this? Especially so in relation to the Ancient Teachings? This is something each must answer for themselves.

Though its methodology may be intact its interpretive credibility questioned - today, when ‘scientism’ asserts that another theory has no merit it’s the first sign that further investigation of that other theory may be warranted; just the opposite affect desired. Growth is what must occur as evidenced with the changing assessments throughout history from Flat Earth, to Geocentric, to Heliocentric, then Galactic-centered which has also met its demise.

The fixation on constantly ‘looking outward’ at Infinity needs to have its ‘inward’ focused complement. Perhaps the Greatest Metaphor has been suggestive of peering into the Nature of Consciousness as deeply as today’s telescopes peer out into the Cosmos. Only just now, for some, with the studies of those exhibiting the Non-locality of Consciousness might we begin to understand what has been naively rejected and why the doors to the Inner Temples always advised “Know Thyself”.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Why Materialism Is Baloney

Unread postby tayga » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:32 pm

Solar wrote:Only just now, for some, with the studies of those exhibiting the Non-locality of Consciousness might we begin to understand what has been naively rejected and why the doors to the Inner Temples always advised “Know Thyself”.


I had not realised until very recently that this outward-fixed gaze has not generally been the norm for humans in their pursuit of knowledge. In fact, the devaluation of subjective experience was a feature of the Enlightenment and the foundation of the scientific method after Descartes. Despite being the first truly modern philosopher, Descartes was a dualist and separated spirit and matter into two interacting realms although this was actually inconsistent with his own propositions about the properties of spirit and matter.

What a shame we followed the Frenchman and not Spinoza and Leibniz in establishing the scientific method. These powerful but difficult-to-digest philosophers considered the universe to be a single, seamless whole with an infinity of potential qualities. They would have laughed at the modern habit of explaining the interaction of point-like billiard ball particles in a void mediated by further, imaginary billiard balls that flicker in and out of existence as and when required.

I was a naive dualist until comparatively recently, prior to that I had been a materialist realist. At no time was I ever fully aware of the leap of faith that is required to sustain either metaphysics and neither, I am convinced, is the overwhelming majority of materialists now. I am still reeling at the impact this change of perspective has had on my existence and I have hardly even started to dig into the implications. However, I am convinced that "Know Thyself" is not only the purpose that drives every mystic but the original, foundational imperative that answers the question why is there something rather than nothing.

(I have only just noticed that I erroneously named the author of Why Materialism is Baloney Roberto Kastrup. His name is Bernardo and I owe him a huge debt of thanks for re-introducing rational idealism to the world).
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests