(2018-02-07, 09:51 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to know what other philosophy or philosophies there are that would be capable of amassing a body of evidence as strong as those two you mention?
I just have to lol at this, I'm sorry. I find your arguments to be so very... shallow and laughable. Pitiful, even.
(2018-02-07, 09:51 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd also like to know how any philosophy or philosophies would demonstrate this capability without resorting to using scientific method?
*Sigh* You do realize that the use scientific method isn't restricted to, nor defined by, the dogmas of reductionist materialism / physicalism, right?
Parapsychology is a field that yields very useful results while adhering to the scientific method, for example.
I swear debating with you staunch materialists is like talking to brick wall, sometimes.
(2018-02-08, 12:05 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]debating with you staunch materialists
I've come to the conclusion, with Steve at least, that there is no point whatsoever to such an endeavor.
Its too bad because I value the notion of a gracious, intellectually honest materialist contributing their perspective to the discussions here. It just doesn't appear we have one.
(2018-02-07, 01:30 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I know people often resist watching videos posted in threads - I'm guilty of that myself. However, I am very confident that most proponents here will agree with most of what Alan Wallace has to say in this half-hour talk. If you are interested, he sums up our position very well while, at the same time, addressing your point about empirical evidence.
At least he's giving an alternative to the scientific method as a means to discovery. Apparently, science has (somehow) put a stop to "contemplative introspection". (If there's anything of more heft here I'm happy to look at it.)
I have tried contemplative introspection; god told me that reality was purely physical.
(2018-02-06, 07:57 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]What I wonder is where psi fits into this viewpoint. (This is, after all, a site whose theme is the discussion of psi.)
In the absence of psi, it may seem perverse to question the idea that mind is produced by brain through the action of known physical laws. But in the presence of psi, there's obviously something about the mind that isn't explicable in those terms.
So are the sceptics here implicitly assuming that the evidence for psi can be dismissed? Or are they assuming that even if psi does exist, it can somehow be accommodated into an essentially materialist view of the world, by tweaking the laws of physics or something?
A fair question, but given nobody really knows what 'psi' is, tricky to answer. If reality is essentially physical, it's certainly weirder, and more magical, than the strawman version that is presented in an effort to knock it down. Until we can have a stab at modelling 'psi', I'm guessing there will remain some resistance to its acceptance in the mainstream.
(2018-02-08, 08:16 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]At least he's giving an alternative to the scientific method as a means to discovery. Apparently, science has (somehow) put a stop to "contemplative introspection". (If there's anything of more heft here I'm happy to look at it.)
I have tried contemplative introspection; god told me that reality was purely physical.
If you had contemplated a little longer you might have discovered that god is you/you are god.
One way to come up with evidence that supports the filter model would be to find the source of the information independently of the brain.
~~ Paul
(2018-02-09, 10:48 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]One way to come up with evidence that supports the filter model would be to find the source of the information independently of the brain.
~~ Paul
Then the problems become: Where to look?, What to look for? How to recognize it for what it is? Those that believe consciousness lays some undefinable place besides the brain certainly have their work cut out for them.
(2018-02-08, 12:05 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Quote:Me:
I would like to know what other philosophy or philosophies there are that would be capable of amassing a body of evidence as strong as those two you mention?
Quote:You:
I just have to lol at this, I'm sorry. I find your arguments to be so very... shallow and laughable. Pitiful, even.
Me:
This is the third question you've avoided answering. Do you think in-between your bouts of laughter you might be able to answer?
Quote:Quote:Me:
I'd also like to know how any philosophy or philosophies would demonstrate this capability without resorting to using scientific method?
Me:
This is the fourth question.
Quote:You:
*Sigh* You do realize that the use scientific method isn't restricted to, nor defined by, the dogmas of reductionist materialism / physicalism, right?
Parapsychology is a field that yields very useful results while adhering to the scientific method, for example.
I swear debating with you staunch materialists is like talking to brick wall, sometimes.
Me:
You seem to be alluding to the science of parapsychology(ism) as equivalent to immaterialism. I'm sure you know science besides making new discoveries it also endeavors to understand the mechanisms underlying how those discoveries work, therefore it cannot be anything else but reductive. Science by its nature is inherently reductive. Like it or not parapsychology would still lead to reductionism. So I ask, why would immaterialists use ultimately reductive science to prove the immaterial is the only correct way to find the true nature of this universe?
(2018-02-08, 01:30 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Its too bad because I value the notion of a gracious, intellectually honest materialist contributing their perspective to the discussions here. It just doesn't appear we have one.
No, you don't.
You two will really love this vid.
https://youtu.be/75kU0s4EG8w