Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Open_Minded]

Furthermore, there is a lot of psychic quackery. This also touches on religion. People want to believe in Faith Healing, talking with the dead and past lives (even if these things are not strictly consistent with the doctrines of their particular religion). Perhaps it is this that makes me skeptical of all claims of a paranormal nature. Rather than trying to say that THIS psychic has special abilities and THAT psychic is a quack, I decided that a manifestly skeptical attitude towards them all was the best course.

 

Shyone... when I write of evolving our empathy, as a species, I do not think of what people typically think of in regards to psychic abilities...

 

Sigh... how to communicate this... If memory serves me correctly we touched on this very early in the thread and I was never able to fully communicate what I feel.

 

But... right now... at least in the industrialized nations ... we humans have an internal understanding of reality as a heartless, and random, clockwork universe. This pervades the way we approach life... We talk of "survival of the fittest" in economic as well as biological terms. We, very often treat our interactions with other human beings as do or die competitions. And very often, we don't allow ourselves to feel empathy - if it means we're going to "loose".

 

What I elude to when I speak of how this knowledge will change humanity, is how it will change our views of ourselves and the universe. I went back to an earlier point in the discussion and found the following discussion between you and myself:

 

 

A clockwork universe is indeed "cold" and "soulless". In every respect. Sorry about that. It can't be helped.

Yes... actually it can be helped. Actually... empiricism IS helping it. This goes right to the root of the discussion. "Reductionism and Materialisn are NOT Scientific Givens". There is a difference between empiricism and materialism. You said earlier...

 

Ultimately, in order for empricism to be useful, it must assume materialism.

Quantum physics with its wavicals and "potentia" at the foundation of reality is forcing us to rethink where materialism fits into reality. Please understand here, Shyone, I am NOT saying it is forcing us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Materialism is necessary for classical empiricism ... this science agrees on. But... we have discovered a level of reality in which empirically speaking materialism has (at the least) very little to say. And so... empiricism is REQUIRING us to rethink the soulless and cold clock work universe.

 

Personally I couldn't be happier. But... more to the point of the discussion... science is being turned on its ear no less than when Newtonian physics forced humanity to rethink the picture of reality prevelant at that time.

 

We (all of humanity) are all on the cusp of just such a change in how reality is viewed. The metaphor of a clockwork universe is being empirically questioned (by many scientists) for the first time in 300 years. The metaphor of a clockwork universe is giving way to something with soul and life.

 

I refer again to a metaphor given to the world by David Bohm:

 

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:

A stream is a living eco system, what a wonderful analogy in comparison to a mechanical clock.

 

Bohm said:

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances

 

Bohm also used the following phrase to describe the universe...."Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement." .... What a wonderful description, metaphor... "flowing movement" ... hardly lifeless, cold and soulless.....

 

This is my point, scientists themselves are debating the validity of a "clockwork" universe. Scientists themselves are in disagreement whether the universe is cold and soulless or whether the universe is a living Unity...

 

And impirically speaking the ONLY thing that can be said is that science is proving more and more that whatever deep reality is - nonlocality requires that it be a HOLISTIC reality, a unity.

 

The metaphor of a clockwork universe is hardly holistic..... Bohm's metaphor of a stream..... very beautiful and living and holistic. A stream is an ecosystem with a life of its own..

 

The process will continue... quantum physics will increasingly require us to grapple with, and eventually discard the metaphor of a clockwork universe. What metaphor will arise and take center stage, I've no idea. I hope Bohm's stream is front and center stage.... but I am only one person. Time and history will tell the story....

 

How we view reality matters on a very deep level. Even if human beings evolved any psychic abilities we might have, what matters most is what we see when we look in the collective mirror. Are we in competition for survival with one and other, or .... are we interconnected??? What we see influences the way we act towards ourselves, towards each other and towards the earth. That is how I think life will change if this research bears concrete proof...

 

_______________________________________--

 

 

But... you never answered my question...

 

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

[Shyone]

But... you never answered my question...

 

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

Well, my reply was that I don't think much would change. Many already assume the studies are either confirming the existence of paranormal stuff or they accept it without the studies.

 

Scientists would start hypothesizing about what the mechanism is, testing to see what affects it and what doesn't, designing experiments to better understand it. It would simply be another property of humans that we would need to investigate. It would be absolutely fascinating!

 

But... right now... at least in the industrialized nations ... we humans have an internal understanding of reality as a heartless, and random, clockwork universe. This pervades the way we approach life... We talk of "survival of the fittest" in economic as well as biological terms. We, very often treat our interactions with other human beings as do or die competitions. And very often, we don't allow ourselves to feel empathy - if it means we're going to "loose".

 

Social Darwinism is a disgusting attempt to take a biological phenomenon and justify inhuman behavior and injustice. Biologically, in non-human species it is unquestionably important. The slowest get clobbered because they are at the back of the pack, the deaf get caught unawares and so forth. Humans are subject to similar pressures only in extreme circumstances. The people starving and dying of thirst in Africa will leave the "hardiest" alive to reproduce or the most resolute parents (willing to take extreme measures for their children) will enable their children to live to reproduce.

 

Humanism allows all to be considered equal, and such extreme circumstances should be countered to allow as many as possible to live. We don't have to just "accept" the plight of the disadvantaged, we can do something about it.

 

It is almost ironic that the most selfish attitude, the most unempathetic language, comes from those who feel "blessed." As if to say, "We've got ours, and they must deserve their fate", the territorial and tribal impulses outweigh the charitable impulses.

 

And then there are those who are religious humanists. They work hard for others, and they do so because they are good. Good people will do good with or without religion.

 

When you see attitudes that are selfish and uncaring of others, counter them by example, by words and by charity. We don't have to silently suffer the cruel words and actions of others towards their fellow human beings.

 

Sorry if that got a little off topic. Sometimes I get carried away.

[Open_Minded]

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

 

Well, my reply was that I don't think much would change. Many already assume the studies are either confirming the existence of paranormal stuff or they accept it without the studies.

 

If you don't think much would change than why did you say the following??

 

Really, do you understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed, would be?

 

If nothing much would change... why would concrete evidence of psychic phenomenon be so "earth shattering"?

[Shyone]

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

 

Well, my reply was that I don't think much would change. Many already assume the studies are either confirming the existence of paranormal stuff or they accept it without the studies.

 

If you don't think much would change than why did you say the following??

 

Really, do you understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed, would be?

 

If nothing much would change... why would concrete evidence of psychic phenomenon be so "earth shattering"?

It would indicate a totally new, unknown and unexplored phenomenon! The scientific world would have to do a 180 about psychic phenomena, and it might have completely novel applications for everything from communications to psychiatry.

 

The world would be a very different place when viewed through a lens of mental and physical abilities that have never before been acknowledged.

 

It would be as transforming as the the discovery of relativity.

 

Did you think I meant something else?

 

ETA: The general perception would be unaffected, and my wife, for one, would simply say, "I told you so..."

[Open_Minded]

It would be as transforming as the the discovery of relativity.

Yes, it would be... it would definitely be a paradigm shift. We would have to learn to reconcile relativity (Newton's clockwork universe) and no relativity (quantum non-locality) all in the same living experience.

 

Did you think I meant something else?

Wasn't sure what you meant, that's why I asked.

 

ETA: The general perception would be unaffected, and my wife, for one, would simply say, "I told you so..."

 

Here's hoping your wife gets to tell you, "I told you so" in this lifetime.

[badpuppy]

My point is that consciousness is not so simple to define as reductionists would have us believe. That there are many intelligent, sincere people within the scientific community who do not share a reductionist view of biology.

I completely agree with this OM. But as the article itself says... We must be open minded but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

 

I tend to think this way because it makes more sense to me than having intelligent entities somehow come about in an unintelligent universe...like birds landing on a dead tree; being plopped here from somewhere else. No wonder alien speculation and the theistic views of God abound! There is not much difference in the thinking of the proponents of an outside creator and the materialistic atheist, IMO. Just different sides of the same coin. Both see the universe as dead only the theist puts a "God" in there to shape the dead clay and atheist sees this same dead clay coming alive...somehow. I say, "The clay is A.L.I.V.E.!!!" (Sorry, horror movie moment).

 

I'm working on writing a book right now on rational spirituality and I said the same thing... that I think monotheism and materialism are two sides of the same coin. Both sides seem locked in a perpetual battle, either unaware that their are OTHER alternate ideas out there, or else thinking those other ideas don't warrant any of their time or energy to explore. (And I guess I'm resurrecting this topic because you sent a link to it in another thread . And then i was reading through, saw this thought and was like "What a coinkidink!")

[NotBlinded]

My point is that consciousness is not so simple to define as reductionists would have us believe. That there are many intelligent, sincere people within the scientific community who do not share a reductionist view of biology.

I completely agree with this OM. But as the article itself says... We must be open minded but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

 

I tend to think this way because it makes more sense to me than having intelligent entities somehow come about in an unintelligent universe...like birds landing on a dead tree; being plopped here from somewhere else. No wonder alien speculation and the theistic views of God abound! There is not much difference in the thinking of the proponents of an outside creator and the materialistic atheist, IMO. Just different sides of the same coin. Both see the universe as dead only the theist puts a "God" in there to shape the dead clay and atheist sees this same dead clay coming alive...somehow. I say, "The clay is A.L.I.V.E.!!!" (Sorry, horror movie moment).

 

I'm working on writing a book right now on rational spirituality and I said the same thing... that I think monotheism and materialism are two sides of the same coin. Both sides seem locked in a perpetual battle, either unaware that their are OTHER alternate ideas out there, or else thinking those other ideas don't warrant any of their time or energy to explore. (And I guess I'm resurrecting this topic because you sent a link to it in another thread . And then i was reading through, saw this thought and was like "What a coinkidink!")

After reading several of your posts, I had a feeling you would like it!

 

I have been away for quite some time (I do that for some reason) so I have to refresh my mind on how to express my thoughts...if I have any left.

 

Please let me us know when your book is complete. I would love to read it.

[badpuppy]

 

After reading several of your posts, I had a feeling you would like it!

 

I have been away for quite some time (I do that for some reason) so I have to refresh my mind on how to express my thoughts...if I have any left.

 

Please let me us know when your book is complete. I would love to read it.

 

Will do.

[Legion]

I think monotheism and materialism are two sides of the same coin. Both sides seem locked in a perpetual battle, either unaware that their are OTHER alternate ideas out there, or else thinking those other ideas don't warrant any of their time or energy to explore.

This seems like a near accurate assessment to me. It seems part of it is that the one says an omniscient view is possible and only God can have it. The other says omniscience is possible and we can have it given the appropriate study.

 

I think the problem is that omniscience is not possible. I don't believe it's possible because nature is complex and this complexity implies an infinitude of understandings.

[badpuppy]

I think monotheism and materialism are two sides of the same coin. Both sides seem locked in a perpetual battle, either unaware that their are OTHER alternate ideas out there, or else thinking those other ideas don't warrant any of their time or energy to explore.

This seems like a near accurate assessment to me. It seems part of it is that the one says an omniscient view is possible and only God can have it. The other says omniscience is possible and we can have it given the appropriate study.

 

I think the problem is that omniscience is not possible. I don't believe it's possible because nature is complex and this complexity implies an infinitude of understandings.

 

I definitely agree. I don't think the ultimate truth is empirically knowable by finite beings. Another thing I think is interesting is... I think monotheism ALSO assumes materialism as a basic assumption. They think the material world exists "out there somewhere" as some "objective reality" but they just posit a "supernatural agency" is somehow involved. Materialists reject this because then who created God and it's extraneous, and none of the supernatural things gods tend to do seem to be happening (walking on water, raising the dead, etc.). But BOTH sides are operating from the same basic assumption. They just have different explanations.

 

I don't operate from that same assumption. Of course I HAVE an assumption and my assumption may be wrong and theirs right or mine may be wrong in addition to theirs being wrong. I personally hope for continued consciousness, and if I'm right about "that" (which I may not be), then i believe at that time i will have a larger frame of reference than is possible for me to have as a human being on this level of existence.

 

If there is nothing after this life then that is unfortunate because there are lots of things I'd like to know. I think maybe the reason materialism is as stridently defended as monotheism is... monotheists tend to be scared of death (not always but a lot of times) and materialists sometimes seem to be afraid of not being able to know. Both situations involve a fear of a loss... consciousness, or limit to ability to gather knowledge. To one it seems unfair that we should cease to exist. To the other it seems unfair that we can't know and understand how it all is. Both create myths to assuage those fears. (And of course we ALL create myths because some things can't be expressed in any other language.)

 

I hope there is something after, like monotheists. And I hope that there is a way for me to understand and know more, like materialists. But if I cease being or cant' know everything ever, then that's just how it is. I don't personally think that's how it is, but I admit I could be wrong as I'm not trying to claim some ultimate truth resting on the authority of a supreme being or academia... just my own limited perception of how things are. But in the end, no matter what authority we claim stands behind us, we are ALL operating from our own limited perception.

[Legion]

I think I hear what you're saying in the main Badpuppy. I feel fairly confident that we can gain ever greater understanding of nature, but we'll never fully understand it. The first idea gives me hope. I just feel acceptance about the second idea. It is what it is.

 

And I also think empirical methods will remain an important part of a growing understanding of nature. Afterall, we still have to measure and predict. I bear in mind that the study of nature has a utilitarian aspect which is concentrated in the production of accurate predictions. I think this requires both empirical and theoretical research.

[badpuppy]

I think I hear what you're saying in the main Badpuppy. I feel fairly confident that we can gain ever greater understanding of nature, but we'll never fully understand it. The first idea gives me hope. I just feel acceptance about the second idea. It is what it is.

 

And I also think empirical methods will remain an important part of a growing understanding of nature. Afterall, we still have to measure and predict. I bear in mind that the study of nature has a utilitarian aspect which is concentrated in the production of accurate predictions. I think this requires both empirical and theoretical research.

 

Yes, I definitely think we'll learn more and I think that's awesome, but like you, I don't think we'll ever fully understand everything. (even on a proposed higher plane beyond this life, I don't think i would know "everything" but it would be neat to know more.) Even if my dream idea somehow ended up being true or close to true I absolutely feel there is huge value in science and the things we can learn about the "material". Obviously the reality we find ourselves in has an internal consistency and rules. It's important to understand those rules so we know how better to function here and get the most out of the experience. I have nothing but respect for the scientific method and what we can learn from it. My only objection is that the materialist philosophy has been trying to "take over" science. I think science should stay out of philosophy and just report the facts rather than trying to interpret them in ways that go beyond what we can know.

 

I also think materialism is a "valid interpretation" (of many), but I think it's wrong to promote it as the "only interpretation" because that's quite a stretch.

[Legion]

My only objection is that the materialist philosophy has been trying to "take over" science.

I agree that materialists/reductionists do have an outsized influence among many sciences. I try to bear in mind that Descartes' machine metaphor was published in his Discourses in 1637. And Newton published the Principia in 1687. These guys had a large influence.

 

I think science should stay out of philosophy and just report the facts rather than trying to interpret them in ways that go beyond what we can know.

Oh, I certainly think the facts are indispensible. However, the main thrust of science is to produce models, which means they cannot remain satisfied with facts alone. They must weave facts together in a manner to provide explanations and predictions of nature. And I don't believe science can stay out of philosophy. It has roots in philosophy. It may likely be the case that materialism/reductionism continue to have such oversized influence because researchers have not payed enough attention to these roots.

 

I also think materialism is a "valid interpretation" (of many), but I think it's wrong to promote it as the "only interpretation" because that's quite a stretch.

Ah, I agree. Nature does not merely appear complex; it IS complex. I think this complexity implies that our understandings of it will be multifaceted. (I sort of get this image of a bee looking at the world through a compound eye.

[badpuppy]

Is there a way to produce models without claiming ultimate truth, though? Because that's my primary objection. It would also be nice if it could be remembered that materialism was a methodological assumption that has now morphed into a metaphysical assumption, but on both counts it's an assumption. And I agree that there is no way for science and philosophy to never overlap. After all, it is a philosophical position from which the materialist assumption comes about in the first place. It just now feels as if "Science" (and not even science, but materialistic science since science is not some homogenous blob and plenty of physicists are now positing a conscious universe or matter coming from consciousness instead of the other way around. Those aren't "fake scientists" just because they aren't materialists), is trying to "be everything to everyone". And I don't feel that's appropriate.

 

I think you make a really good point about philosophy and not paying attention to roots. It was rash of me to say they should stay out of it. Maybe they should engage with it more fully... if it can be done without trying to "own the conversation" there, too. Much of this type of science comes across to me as domineering and arrogant, which is what I find offensive. Observations about nature aren't offensive to me, but dogmatic interpretations of them delivered in a domineering way, is.

 

I think it comes down to, people don't like to be controlled. I think more people would be open to more science if a few loud materialists weren't pretending to "own science" and then shoving their worldview down our collective throats. I'm happy to entertain options and viewpoints, including materialism. But when it becomes a one true wayism is when I lose all respect for it even in theory. I also think it's very incomplete, and as such, it isn't unreasonable for someone to "withhold" acceptance of certain things until more evidence is actually in.

 

Basically I think some people have done great disservice to their ideas due to the arrogance with which they've presented them.

 

I like your bee metaphor. Yes, nature is very complex which I find fascinating and which is why I don't think ANY simplistic answer is THE answer... that includes monotheism, materialism, or, in fact, my own viewpoint.

[Legion]

Is there a way to produce models without claiming ultimate truth, though?

For me, the word "model" basically means "explicit understanding" and this is contrasted with implicit understandings which I believe we all possess. I don't view an understanding as being equivalent to a truth. I really ought to spend some time thinking about this so that I can explain it.

 

I join you in complaint with what the materialists/reductionists have done to constrain our minds. However, I don't care about going too frequently to a place of limitations and saying to it, "You are limited." Nah man. I'd rather go to place with fewer limitations and be set free.

 

Much of this type of science comes across to me as domineering and arrogant, which is what I find offensive. Observations about nature aren't offensive to me, but dogmatic interpretations of them delivered in a domineering way, is.

 

I think it comes down to, people don't like to be controlled.

If I come upon a person and say, "Look here at this. I can tell you what's going on with it and why. My explanations have withstood scrutiny and my predictions never fail. You will be my student because I am your natural teacher."

 

I think that's... um... just a tad ugly.

 

What if I don't care about the subject in which you have understanding?

What if it has no useful bearing upon my life?

What if... what if I just snapped your damn neck?

 

Anyway yeah, I'm feeling you on that Badpuppy.

[badpuppy]

@Legion

 

Yes... regarding the idea of not going to a place of limitations and saying "you are limited". Over the past few days I got into that and it put me in the same annoyed/frustrated/angry place it always puts me. it frustrates me deeply that a lot of materialists will NOT acknowledge they hold an assumption about the nature of reality or that their opinions/perceptions are not "empirical truth" in any kind of provable way. (Of course Christians will NOT acknowledge that they don't hold the one true truth and that just because they believe it doesn't make hell empirically real, and I've made peace with THAT nonsense. I suppose it will just take me time to make peace with this nonsense as well.)

 

They just deny and resist. It irks me. But if I keep engaging with those people beyond just stating my personal viewpoint on an issue and moving on, then I start taking on some of the personality traits of a fundamentalist in my frustration over dealing with someone I feel is somewhat fundamentalist in their worldview. It makes me look like a pushy douche and I hate that. My only recourse is to just eliminate such nonsense from my world by not engaging and actively ignoring whenever I come up against someone who sees things that way.

 

And by "that way" I don't mean Atheist or materialist. I'm fine with those worldviews and respect why some people hold them... "that way" is the pushy "I'm right and here's why you're an illogical twit" way. It's the attitude, not the worldview. People can hold many different worldviews without me getting worked up about it, it's how they interface with alternate worldviews... whether they insist in their own empirical superiority and rightness or if they concede that they are going with what makes the most sense to them and can respect others disagreeing without thinking those others are automatically somehow defective.

 

All people aren't compatible and I have to accept that. I'm going to think they're close-minded and confused about opinion vs. reality. They're going to think I'm well.. whatever they think I am. I can't even hazard a guess at this point.

 

And YES regarding that attitude being a tad ugly. AND LMAO at all the statements following that.

[Legion]

I can't even hazard a guess at this point.

Well, you strike me as being spirited and passionate. I think I'll have to be sharp to get a bead on you though, because you also strike me a being a dynamic person. I hope as you go forward you will continue to engage wisdom and creativity.

 

(and an occasional bit of evil)

[badpuppy]

I can't even hazard a guess at this point.

Well, you strike me as being spirited and passionate. I think I'll have to be sharp to get a bead on you though, because you also strike me a being a dynamic person. I hope as you go forward you will continue to engage wisdom and creativity.

 

(and an occasional bit of evil)

 

 

Thanks! And I hope so, too. I want my new label to be "unboxable". Then I can trademark it and yell at people when they try to steal it.

[Yrth]

tl;dr. apologies.

 

I'm happy to entertain options and viewpoints, including materialism. But when it becomes a one true wayism is when I lose all respect for it even in theory. I also think it's very incomplete, and as such, it isn't unreasonable for someone to "withhold" acceptance of certain things until more evidence is actually in.

Is that the one true way? : /

I still think that's a pretty 'god of the gaps' way of looking at things. How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? As opposed to assuming that it is material. And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[

Hope I didn't completely misread what you've been saying.

[Vigile]

How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material?

 

That's my take as well. Natural explanations are the trend and the trend has thus far not ceded a single victory. In fact, it's been a bull market for centuries.

 

Natural explanations also lead to useful purposes. We build dams with them harnessing electricity. We build ships with them to travel the oceans and even fly through space. The entire world is now wired, we've made great strides solving medical mysteries. Hell, the list is virtually endless and yet those who have pet religions claim we who pay attention to science at the expense of the esoteric are merely religious and its tools rest on the same unproven foundations theirs does. Really?

 

When ESP overtakes email as a primary communication technique, I guess I'll have to reexamine my thinking.

[badpuppy]

tl;dr. apologies.

 

I'm happy to entertain options and viewpoints, including materialism. But when it becomes a one true wayism is when I lose all respect for it even in theory. I also think it's very incomplete, and as such, it isn't unreasonable for someone to "withhold" acceptance of certain things until more evidence is actually in.

Is that the one true way? : /

I still think that's a pretty 'god of the gaps' way of looking at things. How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? As opposed to assuming that it is material. And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[

Hope I didn't completely misread what you've been saying.

 

Pockets,

 

I think this is a dream. I added it to my signature so I don't have to keep saying it.

[Legion]

How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material?

There appears to be somethig wrong with this question. Probably has a Latin name, but I don't know it.

 

As I gain a bit more understanding of nature I am coming to conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's relational.

[Yrth]

tl;dr. apologies.

 

I'm happy to entertain options and viewpoints, including materialism. But when it becomes a one true wayism is when I lose all respect for it even in theory. I also think it's very incomplete, and as such, it isn't unreasonable for someone to "withhold" acceptance of certain things until more evidence is actually in.

Is that the one true way? : /

I still think that's a pretty 'god of the gaps' way of looking at things. How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? As opposed to assuming that it is material. And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[

Hope I didn't completely misread what you've been saying.

 

Pockets,

 

I think this is a dream. I added it to my signature so I don't have to keep saying it.

Sleep well and wake, I guess. : /

[NotBlinded]

How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material?

There appears to be somethig wrong with this question. Probably has a Latin name, but I don't know it.

 

As I gain a bit more understanding of nature I am coming to conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's relational.

What's Latin for begging the question? It does nothing to exlain what material is or what is natural for that matter. I could be wrong.

[Antlerman]

How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material?

And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them.

 

How about an apple? Have you ever seen one in nature? No... I don't mean the fruit the word apple represents, but an a-p-p-l-e as something that objectively exists outside of your mind as a real material object. That doesn't exist in the so-called *real* world. Yet, as I typed the word, and you read it, that string of letters came out of my mind and into yours, evoking an experience that was real. You saw a fruit in your mind, and experienced that fruit - that fruit that was not physical. It was not material, yet fully real for you. You experienced it.

 

And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[

It seems reasonable to me that we all recognize that not everything in life can be explained or understood by examining it a material, like understanding intentions, desires, dreams, hopes, etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to me - reasonableness, another non-material reality.

 

Do you react negatively to those who can't see the world as strictly material or reducible to the material?