Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Post Reply New Topic

So you think consciousness gives you a perfect simulation of the universe? Do rabbits have a perfect simulation of the universe? Or just enough to evolve and survive?

I made no statement regarding the perfection of human perception. I well expect it to be highly flawed; however, that is not what I was addressing. It is not prima facie obvious that if human perception is flawed therefore the objective universe is altered by our observations.

What I'm saying is perception is change. The same way our eye messes around with light to make it visible/relay it to us, but you don't know this through actual perception. You can't feel or sense what your eye is doing to the light.

Some of the people on the thread are property dualists, and they uphold that consciousness emerges from this material reality. To them, this seems like a workable theory on the relationship of consciousness to matter.

That isn't necessary to posit that consciousness might be material.

Are you going to invoke Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

And this relates to materialism precisely how...?

The fact that reality isnt what it seems to be. It is a censored and cleaned up version. Reduced to a metaphor we can understand. If our eye f***s with reality before giving it to us, what does your consciousness do to it? What do we check consciousness with? Consciousness is what every sense goes through. It can't be checked. We can't see what it is censoring. We can't be certain of anything. Materialism if flawed and requires faith.

Right, consciousness is basic, but materialism is still supportable as our best evidence leans towards materialism, and materialism has no inherent conflict with consciousness. I mean, would I put consciousness-based knowledge above material knowledge? Sure, but that does not refute materialism, if we accept that the consciousness can be accounted for by a material conception of the world.

No doubt our best evidence leads to materialism. I am just pointing out it is flawed and requires a little faith.

Yet less faith than other ideas.

Human beings have a three-dimensional consciousness of a universe that has probably more than the three dimensions we can perceive.

IMO what we call "the supernatural" is the result of extradimensional phenomenon softly intruding into our 3 dimensional consciousness. However many dimensions the universe may actually have, God exists simultaneously in all of them.

There is no proof for spirits just like there was no proof for bacteria in the days of Pasteur.

It's so lame to base your opinions on others. You can't tell me you have never walked into a room and haven't felt a presence or feeling of those before you. If you really are that unaware of your surroundings, I am truly sorry for you. I really do not want to judge the common sense ret*ds but I can't help but think that you are all trying to hide behind "logic" like a tool.

Well, I can tell you that this sensation has not met the epistemic standard by which I accept believing in something. I have contradictory beliefs I would have to accept if I took that as valid.

Logic is a tool, and it is one of the standardly accepted ones for accepting a belief. I do not think I can completely deny you the epistemic right to believe unless I can prove that you contradict your own epistemology, but I can argue that based upon a number of commonly accepted tools, I can choose not to believe what you do, and question your belief.

AG, I have never told you how much I appreciate your intelluctual posts. No, I'm not trying to flatter you as much as show my understanding of your way of thinking. In that way I would hope that you would put aside your beliefs for a moment and think that there may be a more advanced form of life that transcends humans.

It was was easier for Pasteur to find the lower life forms because people at the time believed it was possible that smaller, lower animals could exist. I ask the question if higher life forms like such could also exist. It seems reasonable to me that they could especially because I can feel them. It's a "ret*d" aspie thing. Who's to say though? In fact, I know for myself that higher life forms exist but I can't prove it. The reason why is that it's a "subconsious" thing.

I'm still not sure how it all works but I know it's there. Maybe I don't know for a reason for if I really knew it would bring it all back into this material realm and then it wouldn't be so metaphysical?

Well, it is possible, but it is difficult to discover. If there is a Pasteur, then I would hope that he provides evidence the rest of us would accept. In any case, I am not big on thinking that the future is knowable, so even if you are the next Pasteur, there is nothing wrong with criticizing you so long as we do not prevent you from thinking.


I have come to distrust intuitions as I think that they are often wrong, and thus would relegate them to special areas of knowledge, areas that I usually distrust.

That may be true, however, if you cannot prove/provide evidence that the standards put forward are problematic, and that yours are better, then a problem emerges.

I don't want to veere off tract for too long but I want to know your opinion in short about why you think you aren't a good judge at perceiving higher entities. I mean, have you ever felt something about a person that bugged you and then it proved to be an accurate warning? I'm not saying that intuition is always an accurate measure of reality, but for some (jeez...this is getting finicky) umm...er...ok, here's the question...

Looking back in hind sight, some things that come straight out to you like truth and goes against your logic and, when it slaps you in the face and reminds you that it was/is right despite your rationale...it's undeniable, that "delusional" voice, right?

Intuition is only as accurate as one's level of self awareness.