Materialist philosopher admits that there are no rational reason to be a materialist

Here is an paper I found by a materialist philosopher that admits that there are no rational reason to be a materialist.

https://www.newdualism.org/papers/W.Lycan/Du.htm

Here is an paper I found by a materialist philosopher that admits that there are no rational reason to be a materialist.

https://www.newdualism.org/papers/W.Lycan/Du.htm

I think that anybody who is being totally honest with themselves has to admit that their position, whichever side of the fence they are on, might be based on evidence and reasoning, but at the end of the day involves a not insubstantial step of faith.

I think that anybody who is being totally honest with themselves has to admit that their position, whichever side of the fence they are on, might be based on evidence and reasoning, but at the end of the day involves a not insubstantial step of faith.

I would say this is true by degrees. Materialism is just illogical, because it creates a category of the "physical" that has no mental content but makes up conscious entities somehow.

Religions require faith, but lack the comprehensive consideration of evidence that parapsychology gives us.

Of course the general question of Survival is not at the level of confidence we assign to that which is scientifically replicated, so there is a leap of faith there.

Religions require faith, but lack the comprehensive consideration of evidence that parapsychology gives us.

I disagree with this statement on the grounds of personal experience having experienced both types of evidence.  My experience is that both are as prolific but religious evidence is qualitatively superior to the experiencer if more difficult to explain to others.

I think that anybody who is being totally honest with themselves has to admit that their position, whichever side of the fence they are on, might be based on evidence and reasoning, but at the end of the day involves a not insubstantial step of faith.

No, I think that:

1)      There is at least one mechanism by which the mental can interact with the physical, spelled out by the physicist Henry Stapp.

2)      There seems to be a rich source of reports of various kinds that require some form of Dualism. They all seem to be argued down rather than taken seriously. Above all, this means that no serious effort is made to harden up research results.

3)      A shedload of observations in books such as "Irreducible Mind" presents a mountain of evidence that can't be explained materialistically.

It is important to accept that experimental sciences can only disprove certain ideas, they can never prove an idea. For example, consider an experiment to prove Ohm's law, that the current flowing through a resistor is proportional to the voltage across it, or in a more general way I=V/R. Everyone has done this at school and obtained a straight line graph. However, suppose that the current varied in an osscillatory way with voltage,  but the measurement points happened to be points that lay on a straight line! That may sound extremely unlikely, but that is my point - every empirical scientific test of an idea can only provide finite support for that idea - never a proof.

I think this is relevant here because it means that in science you shouldn't invent a sequence of increasingly implausible proposals to try to escape a conclusion that you do not like. Holding on to Materialism despite all the evidence seems to me to be exactly that kind of mistake.

David

No, I think that:

1)      There is at least one mechanism by which the mental can interact with the physical, spelled out by the physicist Henry Stapp.

2)      There seems to be a rich source of reports of various kinds that require some form of Dualism. They all seem to be argued down rather than taken seriously. Above all, this means that no serious effort is made to harden up research results.

3)      A shedload of observations in books such as "Irreducible Mind" presents a mountain of evidence that can't be explained materialistically.

It is important to accept that experimental sciences can only disprove certain ideas, they can never prove an idea. For example, consider an experiment to prove Ohm's law, that the current flowing through a resistor is proportional to the voltage across it, or in a more general way I=V/R. Everyone has done this at school and obtained a straight line graph. However, suppose that the current varied in an osscillatory way with voltage,  but the measurement points happened to be points that lay on a straight line! That may sound extremely unlikely, but that is my point - every empirical scientific test of an idea can only provide finite support for that idea - never a proof.

I think this is relevant here because it means that in science you shouldn't invent a sequence of increasingly implausible proposals to try to escape a conclusion that you do not like. Holding on to Materialism despite all the evidence seems to me to be exactly that kind of mistake.

David

No matter what you think makes sense, you cannot prove that your favourite position is the right one.   Unless you think you are God, you have to admit that I am right about reasonable uncertainty and the need for faith.

I disagree with this statement on the grounds of personal experience having experienced both types of evidence.  My experience is that both are as prolific but religious evidence is qualitatively superior to the experiencer if more difficult to explain to others.

 
Hmmmmm. What counts as "religious evidence", why is it "evidence", and what is it evidence for? Better, can it be meaningfully grounded in everyday experience, and molded in a way that allows for a better life?

Here is an paper I found by a materialist philosopher that admits that there are no rational reason to be a materialist.

https://www.newdualism.org/papers/W.Lycan/Du.htm

David Chalmers I believe said that no metaphysical position is viable but materialism is slightly less than all the others

Previous post by myself deleted (by myself). Reason: Off topic.