Materialism is Self-Refuting

[lemondiesel]

Do you mean you cannot choose what to think or have no control over your feelings? If all our activity is caused by our senses we are just biological machines…

Yes, but “free will” is being able to avoid the natural instincts, which runs biological machines.

You are assuming that our minds are the only minds that exist. How would you justify that?

Our minds are based on language, what other species that we know has a verbal language to express? I never said that other species of animals do not have minds, they just lack the language.

Have you ever heard of Koko the gorilla? If not, you should look into it and the mirror test.

If we create truth then we can change it to suit us! If we create freedom we just imagine that we are free… If we create love it is like a work of fiction, i.e. it doesn’t exist…

We create the interpretation, which is truth. We create freedom because freedom varies in different constitutions. Which freedom is correct then? What is love? Is it the affection we feel towards something? Animals ‘love’ is survival of the fittest, and ours has another aspect. Our love is emotionally connecting, with language. How can any other species do this?

 

[tonyrey]

Do you mean you cannot choose what to think or have no control over your feelings? If all our activity is caused by our senses we are just biological machines…

What enables us to avoid natural instincts?

You are assuming that our minds are the only minds that exist. How would you justify that?

Our minds are based on language, what other species that we know has a verbal language to express? I never said that other species of animals do not have minds, they just lack the language.

If our minds are based on language we must be unable to think without language. Do you think that is true? That thoughts are just words?

Have you ever heard of Koko the gorilla? If not, you should look into it and the mirror test.

I’m afraid I don’t see what that proves.

If we create truth then we can change it to suit us! If we create freedom we just imagine that we are free… If we create love it is like a work of fiction, i.e. it doesn’t exist…

We create the interpretation, which is truth.

An interpretation is not truth because there many interpretations are false.

We create freedom because freedom varies in different constitutions. Which freedom is correct then?

If you prevented from doing what you want you lack freedom whatever the constitution.

What is love? Is it the affection we feel towards something? Animals ‘love’ is survival of the fittest, and ours has another aspect. Our love is emotionally connecting, with language. How can any other species do this?

We use language to try to **express **our love but words are inadequate to describe the reality. Love is the total dedication of oneself to another - regardless of language.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

You are assuming that our minds are the only minds that exist. How would you justify that?
If we create truth then we can change it to suit us! If we create freedom we just imagine that we are free… If we create love it is like a work of fiction, i.e. it doesn’t exist…

Depends on what you mean by “exist.” Concepts like “truth” and “freedom” do not exist as a cup or a lion would exist. That is because “truth” and “freedom” are a level of abstracts that have no connections with the physical world. In other words, you can’t show me freedom or truth as you could a cup or a lion. The real question is can abstracts exist if there is no mind which to think of them.

 

[lemondiesel]

What enables us to avoid natural instincts?

Being able to weigh options

If our minds are based on language we must be unable to think without language. Do you think that is true? That thoughts are just words?

Our minds are based on language that describes the image embedded in the brain taken from reality, we have been through this before

I’m afraid I don’t see what that proves.

Animals have the capability of recognizing self

An interpretation is not truth because there many interpretations are false.

But it is the best interpretation that explains the certain situation that makes it truth

If you prevented from doing what you want you lack freedom whatever the constitution.

Absurd! Do you even know what it takes to develop a Constitution? Some freedoms must be sacrificed in order for the constitution to actually be enforced. Where do you live, Heaven?

We use language to try to **express **our love but words are inadequate to describe the reality. Love is the total dedication of oneself to another - regardless of language.

All sciences explain reality, whether it be the interpretation with numbers or words. Love is not dedication, because some species do not dedicate themselves, you just described a human concept of love. *True Love *must involve all Life.

 

[tonyrey]

Depends on what you mean by “exist.” Concepts like “truth” and “freedom” do not exist as a cup or a lion would exist.

Indisputably correct!

That is because “truth” and “freedom” are a level of abstracts that have no connections with the physical world.

Truth refers to the physical as well as the spiritual world.

In other words, you can’t show me freedom or truth as you could a cup or a lion.

Are freedom and truth less important than a cup or a lion?

The real question is can abstracts exist if there is no mind which to think of them.

Yes! Infinity existed before there were minds in the universe. So did facts, numbers, mathematical ratios, proportions like pi, physical constants and existence itself! The truth exists whether it is recognised or not. So does injustice, inequality, disorder and chance. Slavery was evil even when it was accepted by everybody. Man is not the measure of all things…

 

[tonyrey]

What enables us to avoid natural instincts?

That is not enough to enable us to overcome our instincts. Knowledge is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of freedom.

If our minds are based on language we must be unable to think without language. Do you think that is true? That thoughts are just words?

Our minds are based on language that describes the image embedded in the brain taken from reality, we have been through this before

Not with me! Abstract ideas like truth are not derived from images. Why do we sometimes have ideas we cannot express with words?

Animals have the capability of recognizing self.

They associate their reflection with themselves but that does not mean they have an abstract idea like “I” or “myself”.

But it is the best interpretation that explains the certain situation that makes
it truth.

What makes it the best interpretation?

If you’re prevented from doing what you want you lack freedom whatever the constitution.

Absurd! Do you even know what it takes to develop a Constitution? Some freedoms must be sacrificed in order for the constitution to actually be enforced. Where do you live, Heaven?

Some of the time! Heaven and hell begin in this world. It depends on us to a large extent what we make of life.

The fact remains that even when there was no constitution freedom was often lacking. Freedom wasn’t created by us in the first place but slavery was…

We use language to try to express our love but words are inadequate to describe the reality. Love is the total dedication of oneself to another - regardless of language.

All sciences explain reality, whether it be the interpretation with numbers or words.

But do they explain the whole of reality? The mind of the scientist for example?

Love is not dedication, because some species do not dedicate themselves, you just described a human concept of love.

There are different types of love but the highest form of love is dedication of ourselves to others and sacrificing our life for them even if we have never met them.

True Love must involve all Life.

I agree - because all life is created by God!

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Truth refers to the physical as well as the spiritual world.

I agree, Truth is a concept we can apply to the physical world, but it has no actual connections to the physical world. What I mean is that we can’t point out and say there is a truth as we can a cup. Some abstracts are connected to the physical world in that they describe a group of individual objects, such as “pride” describes a group of lions.

Are freedom and truth less important than a cup or a lion?

I believe the importance of these examples is irrelevant. My point is that a cup or a lion has physical attributes, while truth and freedom do not. No one can show me a truth or a freedom as they can show me a cup or a lion. I believe people can define a concept and apply it to the physical world, but the concept it self is not physical in nature.

Yes! Infinity existed before there were minds in the universe. So did facts, numbers, mathematical ratios, proportions like pi, physical constants and existence itself! The truth exists whether it is recognised or not. So does injustice, inequality, disorder and chance. Slavery was evil even when it was accepted by everybody. Man is not the measure of all things…

How does the concept of infinity exist where no mind exists? Did numbers really exist before the first person(s) to think of them existed?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree, Truth is a concept we can apply to the physical world, but it has no actual connections to the physical world. What I mean is that we can’t point out and say there is a truth as we can a cup. Some abstracts are connected to the physical world in that they describe a group of individual objects, such as “pride” describes a group of lions.

Indisputable!

I believe the importance of these examples is irrelevant. My point is that a cup or a lion has physical attributes, while truth and freedom do not. No one can show me a truth or a freedom as they can show me a cup or a lion. I believe people can define a concept and apply it to the physical world, but the concept itself is not physical in nature.

True but if they deprive you of your freedom or conceal the truth from you it could have a devastating effect on you!

How does the concept of infinity exist where no mind exists? Did numbers really exist before the first person(s) to think of them existed?

Why not? Quantities existed before we did! There were two hydrogen atoms in a molecule of water even when no one knew it. We didn’t invent mathematical facts; “we” discovered them just as “we” discovered facts about spiritual and physical reality.
“We” are another unobservable fact.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Why not? Quantities existed before we did! There were two hydrogen atoms in a molecule of water even when no one knew it. We didn’t invent mathematical facts; “we” discovered them just as “we” discovered facts about spiritual and physical reality.
“We” are another unobservable fact.

I do not understand. How could have quantities existed before someone was around to notice that things could be counted? While we know that a molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms, and thus is an attribute of a molecule of water, does this mean that the number two exists? Or was the number two a concept we developed in order to describe what we know about the molecule of water?

 

[tonyrey]

Why not? Quantities existed before we did! There were two hydrogen atoms in a molecule of water even when no one knew it. We didn’t invent mathematical facts; “we” discovered them just as “we” discovered facts about spiritual and physical reality. “We” are another unobservable fact.

Because quantities are physical attributes

While we know that a molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms, and thus is an attribute of a molecule of water, does this mean that the number two exists? Or was the number two a concept we developed in order to describe what we know about the molecule of water?

“two” describes a concept which refers to an abstract reality. The word or symbol 2 is a convention but what it refers to is a fact! Unity or duality don’t depend on us for their existence. Neither does positivity or negativity! There is certainly an objective difference between success and failure in biological organisms but even inorganic reactions are sometimes incomplete. Health and disease are two aspects of life. They are equivalent to good and evil at the physical level. One of the most convincing examples of bipolarity in the physical world is light and darkness. We don’t invent mathematical truths we discover them…

 

[Rocinante]

We don’t invent mathematical truths we discover them…

so the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle equaled the square of the hypotenuse even before there were triangles and people to contemplate them?

was the square root of -1 always the imaginary number, i?

did the proof for the 4-color problem exist somewhere “out there” before there were even maps to be colored?

was fermat’s little theorem true about integers before dinosaurs roamed the earth? where exactly were the integers it is true about during those eons before thinking humans existed?

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Einstein

 

[JDaniel]

Thoughts and feelings are results of the senses, therefore decisions can be theoretically predictable.

Get rid of the human mind and our societies, what is justice and freedom? These were created by our minds, along with truth and love.

By this time today, you will have already said, “Get rid of the human mind and our societies, what is justice and freedom? These were created by our minds, along with truth and love.”

Thus I refute you.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Yes because He is everything at once

Thus, Time is obliterated by infinity, but, created by finity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think you understand what a mutation is.

Now I know you don’t understand what a mutation is. Mutations don’t “further mutate.” You need to actually read a book on this subject and learn something about it before you say things like this in public.

So, the Type III STS, did not evolve from previous evolutionary proto-appearances? It just occured brutely, all at once, in all of its glory? What were you saying?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Depends on what you mean by “exist.” Concepts like “truth” and “freedom” do not exist as a cup or a lion would exist. That is because “truth” and “freedom” are a level of abstracts that have no connections with the physical world. In other words, you can’t show me freedom or truth as you could a cup or a lion. The real question is can abstracts exist if there is no mind which to think of them.

So, that “by the time you read this and, perhaps, respond, I will have already posted it,” is not True? That I am here typing this and posting it, at this very moment, is just an abstraction?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I agree, Truth is a concept we can apply to the physical world, but it has no actual connections to the physical world. What I mean is that we can’t point out and say there is a truth as we can a cup. Some abstracts are connected to the physical world in that they describe a group of individual objects, such as “pride” describes a group of lions.

I say that, “By the time I read and responded to your post, you will have already posted it,” is not a Truth rooted to, and unavoidably connected to the fact of your existence and the fact of a certain activity? Truth becomes abstraction the as soon as we move into the future?

I believe the importance of these examples is irrelevant. My point is that a cup or a lion has physical attributes, while truth and freedom do not. No one can show me a truth or a freedom as they can show me a cup or a lion. I believe people can define a concept and apply it to the physical world, but the concept it self is not physical in nature.

The concept that, in the past you physically (really) sat and typed your response to Tonerey is purely conceptual? I guess you are not real; I just made you up?

How does the concept of infinity exist where no mind exists? Did numbers really exist before the first person(s) to think of them existed?

He didn’t say, “concept of infinity,” he said, “infinity.” The concept only exists because the truth of infinity follows the actuality of infinity into the future.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

We don’t invent mathematical truths we discover them…

What does that prove? Merely that some mathematical truths are the result of arbitrary axioms and rules but it is absurd to suggest that** all** mathematical truths fall into that category.

was the square root of -1 always the imaginary number, i?

did the proof for the 4-color problem exist somewhere “out there” before there were even maps to be colored?

was fermat’s little theorem true about integers before dinosaurs roamed the earth? where exactly were the integers it is true about during those eons before thinking humans existed?

Your solution to the nature of mathematics is simplistic. Do you believe numbers are arbitrary? Is the speed of light a human invention? Forget about the units of measurement: the ratio of the distance travelled to the time taken is not arbitrary or devised by man. Neither is the **proportion **of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water. Nor is the **number **of planets in the solar system nor the mathematical value of physical constants.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Einstein

Einstein was not infallible! To begin with he rejected quantum theory… Your appeal to his doubtful authority on this subject is unconvincing unless you can refute the points I have made:

The word or symbol 2 is a convention but what it refers to is a fact! Unity or duality don’t depend on us for their existence. Neither does positivity or negativity! There is certainly an objective difference between success and failure in biological organisms but even inorganic reactions are sometimes incomplete. Health and disease are two aspects of life. They are equivalent to good and evil at the physical level. One of the most convincing examples of bipolarity in the physical world is light and darkness. We don’t invent fundamental mathematical truths we discover them…

 

[JDaniel]

I do not understand. How could have quantities existed before someone was around to notice that things could be counted? While we know that a molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms, and thus is an attribute of a molecule of water, does this mean that the number two exists? Or was the number two a concept we developed in order to describe what we know about the molecule of water?

Because quantities are of real things, which are not dependent upon someone to notice them. The manipulation of quantification is what is abstract, not the realities that it is predicated of.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

Not with me! Abstract ideas like truth are not derived from images. Why do we sometimes have ideas we cannot express with words?

Then wouldn’t it be easier to begin with a picture?

They associate their reflection with themselves but that does not mean they have an abstract idea like “I” or “myself”.

Hence, human language…

What makes it the best interpretation?

It is testable and predictable.

The fact remains that even when there was no constitution freedom was often lacking. Freedom wasn’t created by us in the first place but slavery was…

What do you mean? If slavery was created by us, then freedom also was; those two are one with eachother.

Thus, Time is obliterated by infinity, but, created by finity.

Assuming this infinity exists?

 

[JDaniel]

Assuming this infinity exists?

It’s a pretty good assumption, for we have never witnessed anything which is finite create anything. It takes an Infinite to create a finite.

God bless,
jd