Materialism (A mad world)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 18:12 (4538 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: Are you suggesting there might be a form of energy that we have not discovered yet, but reacts sufficiently strongly to shape molecules which in turn shape our consciousnesses? I'll await your evidence?-An interesting observation from an agnostic! If you do not disbelieve in God, do you think a possible God must be a known molecular structure? Even the highly respected theory concerning dark energy suggests there are forms of energy we can't identify. We don't know the source of consciousness, and until we do, I keep an open mind. Evidence? Let's move to your next comment.-ROMANSH: NDEs OBEs etc are not a problem. Take for example our NDEs are simply a reflection of of our culture. Christian NDEs are Christian in aspect, Hindu NDEs are Hindu in aspect. The problem withe psychic phenomena is that they are nigh on impossible to observe under controlled conditions.
 -In every NDE and OBE people remain themselves, i.e. they retain their identity, which includes their consciousness, memories, emotions, imagination, perceptions, reasoning, and of course their culture. How it's all supposed to work I have no idea, but then I have no idea how it works in the here and now, and if you can convince the world that you do know, I will personally pay your fare to Stockholm. But I'm far more interested in NDEs and OBEs that have nothing to do with culture ... those that result in the acquisition of information which could not have been acquired by any explicable means, but is corroborated by third parties. This kind of experience is not even confined to NDEs. There's a vast array of literature on the subject, and vast numbers of people have had such experiences, including some on this forum. NDEs, though, are the nearest we can get to controlled conditions, in the sense that the medical staff can attest to the patient's condition as well as the accuracy of the information. Of course materialists are sceptical, generally because they tend to wave their hands dismissively without bothering to explore the evidence. I am not sceptical, nor am I convinced ... but until there's a clear material explanation not only of these phenomena but also of how cells, chemicals and electrical processes can make matter aware of itself, and aware of being aware, able to feel emotions etc., I shall reserve judgement.-Dhw: My point was that we all think we have a balanced view. I doubt if anyone ... theist, atheist or agnostic ... would dispute that the world is in a mess.
ROMANSH: This particular agnostic vehemently disagrees here. the world is not a mess. Rhetoric like our food is poisonous firmly belongs in the sky is falling camp.
I could be described as a philosophical materialist; to suggest this makes me more materialistic in a worldly hedonistic sense is pure unsupported nonsense. (I understand you are not suggesting this).-I apologize for my assumption that we would all agree the world was in a mess, and as you know, I also disagree emphatically that philosophical materialism has anything to do with the mess the world is or is not in. Perhaps this is a matter of glasses half full and half empty. However, I have no doubt you are perfectly aware that poisoned food is not the focal point of this particular argument: the massive scale of world poverty, with so many countries ravaged by hunger, disease and violence, plus what Tony calls the dysfunctionality of so many societies, along with environmental damage on a vast scale and world economies in such turmoil that the numbers of the sick and poor can only multiply ... these are the mess. But you are vehement in your belief that this does not constitute a mess, and so let us peaceably agree to disagree!