what are the arguments against the materialist paradigm?

[Viking]

the materialist paradigm- consciousness is a byproduct of brain activity.

Give me points that contradict that, make me doubt that.

[SoonHei]

the fact that there is no smallest particle... that reality is groundless

[InfinitePotential]

Argument for God's existence around 14:20 - 15:30

Edited July 25, 2018 by InfinitePotential

[dorg]

When you touch the table top with your fingers there is just a sensation. Now how do you prove that there is a material table top you have touched? You can't.

[Viking]

9 minutes ago, dorg said:

When you touch the table top with your fingers there is just a sensation. Now how do you prove that there is a material table top you have touched? You can't.

i get that, though there is a possibility that theres a table there. i also cant prove that theres no table.

[dorg]

2 minutes ago, Viking said:

i get that, though there is a possibility that theres a table there. i also cant prove that theres no table.

You can see there is a table there. It's just that it's not physical (ie, you cannot prove it is).

[Serge]

@Viking

2 minutes ago, Viking said:

i get that, though there is a possibility that theres a table there. i also cant prove that theres no table.

Yep. There's a possibility that there is a table. There is an infinite number of possibilities. And they are all valid.

And yes, you can't prove there is no table. How can you prove the non-existence of something? To prove that something doesn't exist implies the existence of that thing in the first place.

[Viking]

Just now, Serge said:

There is an infinite number of possibilities. And they are all valid.

you mean that I have certain sensations, and I could interpret those sensations in an infinite amount of ways?

If so, the question then becomes if there is a sensation at all, why cant there be a true "thing" that causes those sensations? without that "thing" there would be no sensations.

[InfinitePotential]

11 minutes ago, Viking said:

you mean that I have certain sensations, and I could interpret those sensations in an infinite amount of ways?

If so, the question then becomes if there is a sensation at all, why cant there be a true "thing" that causes those sensations? without that "thing" there would be no sensations.

How could there POSSIBLY be some"thing" rather than no"thing". As if the default state for aaaalll of reality, at the most fundamental level is that some "object" exists. How tf did it get there?

Makes more sense to me that there's no"thing". Only appearances. Quantum mechanics supports this.

[Viking]

@InfinitePotential didnt understand anything, can you elaborate?

[InfinitePotential]

17 minutes ago, Viking said:

@InfinitePotential didnt understand anything, can you elaborate?

Tricky subject to talk about. But ask yourself how there is something rather than nothing, and go extremely deep. With no preconceived notions, beliefs, etc. Was there pure nothingness out of which things popped out. Have there always been things. What could possibly ground those things' existence. How can their existence possibly be explained (it can't, cause whatever reason you give what grounds that reason?)

Or, does it just appear that there are things, when really there aren't. Science tells us at least that chairs are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, which may be made of strings, which are vibrating "energy", which may be identical to "information"... Are there 1s and 0s on a sheet of paper somewhere out of which arises the world we see?

A chair does not look like a chair, the way a human sees it. Consider what an ant sees, or other animals? What does the chair objectively look like? Does that even make sense, "objective" means regardless of any interpretation. 

Also, look at a computer game. Mario doesn't have actual physical existence, though it appears he does. He is made up of information. Similarly with reality. (Though it goes even deeper than that)

 

[Viking]

6 minutes ago, InfinitePotential said:

A chair does not look like a chair, the way a human sees it. Consider what an ant sees, or other animals? What does the chair objectively look like? Does that even make sense, "objective" means regardless of any interpretation. 

even though every animal senses the chair in a different way, there is still a commonality, all sense something.

15 minutes ago, InfinitePotential said:

Tricky subject to talk about. But ask yourself how there is something rather than nothing, and go extremely deep. With no preconceived notions, beliefs, etc. Was there pure nothingness out of which things popped out. Have there always been things. What could possibly ground those things' existence. How can their existence possibly be explained (it can't, cause whatever reason you give what grounds that reason?)

how can I know why there's something rather than nothing? any explanation i would give would be a belief, the answer is "i dont know".

[Saumaya]

None, thats the thing with consciousness paradigm, there are no arguments against it.

Edit: Oops I read the question wrong, I thought the question was arguments against consciousness paradigm

I think the biggest problem with materialist paradigm is plurality. No Absolute Truth.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Saumaya

[Nahm]

@Viking Locate you. 

[Viking]

2 minutes ago, Saumaya said:

None, thats the thing with consciousness paradigm, there are no arguments against it.

can you explain what the consciousness paradigm says exactly? is it that everything is one? or that everything is consciousness? or that there's infinity? or all of the above?

Just now, Nahm said:

@Viking Locate you. 

from the materialist paradigm there is also no "me", and consciousness is a byproduct of matter- whatever matter may be, even if reality is groundless, it doesnt mean that it's consciousness, it could be some fields with no substance.

[Saumaya]

10 minutes ago, Viking said:

can you explain what the consciousness paradigm says exactly? is it that everything is one? or that everything is consciousness? or that there's infinity? or all of the above?

All of the above really,

Absolute truth is omnipresent, so everything has to be One. Infinity is more like a negation finity in finity terms.

Ill just post an excerpt from my book

Non Duality Explained

Non dual literally means ‘not two’ or that no two truths can exist. 

It is based on two assumptions:-

 

Objective knowledge isn’t possible as reality that we experience is constantly changing

Reality as we know it is One not two

 

Thus, There is Only One Truth and that Truth is All

Non Duality Derived 

We can’t say that truth does not exist, as it would amount to a logical contradiction.

To say that truth does not exist is a self nullifying statement.

So we conclude that TRUTH exists.

Lets classify Truth with a capital ’T’ as something of which we can be absolutely certain. 

 

So Truth is something that is: 

Not subject to change 

Makes one absolutely certain of it

 

Thus, Qualities of something Absolutely True must be not be subjected to any duality

It must be :

Timeless

Omnipresent

Impersonal

Constant and Unchanging

Not subjected to any limitations i.e Infinite

False never existed, Only Truth exists so it contains everything

There can’t be two absolute truths so Absolute Truth is not subjected to any duality

Now we have to say that something exists for sure, lets call it Consciousness 

If absolute truth is everything,

 And Consciousness exists

Consciousness is everything

What is Self

There are two types of self:

Self with a capital “S” and self with a lower “s”

 

’S'elf is your true self whereas ’s'elf is your conceptual self.

The conceptual self includes:

Your memories

Beliefs

Assumptions

Associations

 

The True Self includes:

Everything that is left when the conceptual self is removed or we can say simply Being

 

Thus if Consciousness is everything

You experience that consciousness through your true self

Thus comes the saying Tat Tvam Asi ( You are it )

Edited July 25, 2018 by Saumaya

[Nahm]

14 minutes ago, Viking said:

 

from the materialist paradigm there is also no "me", and consciousness is a byproduct of matter- whatever matter may be, even if reality is groundless, it doesnt mean that it's consciousness, it could be some fields with no substance.

Bullshit. The scientific materialist paradigm has come up with ZERO explanation in terms of consciousness arising as a byproduct of matter. This is what scientists refer to as “The Hard Problem of Consciousness”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

But it’s not a hard problem at all. It’s just a scientist who doesn’t do the work. Scientists have known matter is not physical for a very long time (research the Copenhagen vs Multiple Worlds debate as a starting point). Where are you doing your reality inquires...Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1867 Edition? ?

❤️

 

[Viking]

@Saumaya that was extremely eye opening, but what do you guys @Nahm @Saumaya mean by consciousness/awareness? can I be aware of it?

 

[Nahm]

@Saumaya Great writing man. 

@Viking lol. Yeah. Definitly. 

[DesertRat]

Consciousness/awareness?   

You ARE it.