What does it take to falsify materialism?

It is quite straightforward what I am saying. If an object were to disappear here and rematerialize ten miles away, this would be considered para normal or super natural, because of the prevailing materialist paradigm - even though this is what happens as a matter of course with quantum objects.
Do you really consider the very special conditions involved with that as "a matter of course"?
The same goes for faster than light communication (non local), akin to telepathy. As I said, these phenomena, if they could be found in the 'natural' world, would need a completely new paradigm to accommodate them, as materialism doesn't. They have been found, clearly at the quantum level, and arguably at the macro human level.
Are you sure superluminal communication is proven?
 
Do you really consider the very special conditions involved with that as "a matter of course"?
Are you sure superluminal communication is proven?
Yes, it is observed between two entangled quantum objects. No matter how far apart these objects are, in the next room, or in the next galaxy, what the experimenter does to one of these entagled protons, instantaneosly occurs in the other entangled proton.
This is a very reliable finding of quantum mechanics.
 
So, would telepathy fit the bill? Precognition? The Near Death Experience and all it entails? I would say these would require a completely new set of physical laws.
Also, in relation to quantum mechanics, in what way does particles appearing in two places at once, popping in and out of existence, switching from wave form to particle form depending on whether they are being observed or not, non local faster than light instantaneous communication between connected polarised particles, conform to a materialist explanation? (or physicalist or naturalist if you prefer)
It doesn't.
 
for the brain to function requires energy which we acquire from that's why it's physical.
All you are saying is that all physical things require some form of energy. Remember, Brain is not synonymous with mind or conciousness. It is a huge assumption to state that consciousness necessarily requires any form of energy, it may BE a form of energy for all we know.
Honestly though steve, because you didn't finish your sentence, My response may not relevantly address what you meant. I may totally have misunderstood. :p
 
All you are saying is that all physical things require some form of energy. Remember, Brain is not synonymous with mind or conciousness. It is a huge assumption to state that consciousness necessarily requires any form of energy, it may BE a form of energy for all we know.
Honestly though steve, because you didn't finish your sentence, My response may not relevantly address what you meant. I may totally have misunderstood. :p

I was replying from my cell phone at the time now I'm not.

That's an assumption based on the desire to find evidence of life after death. It isn't a huge assumption to think the brain with all it's billions and billions of synaptic connections creates the mind. Frankly, it is a huge assumption to state the mind is some form of undefined energy when there's no evidence for that idea. In light of what you wrote above consider this article.
Scientists create way to see structures that store memories in living brain
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-scientists-memories-brain.html


And consider this. There's no rule or law that demands the mind that arises from brain function can't continue after the brain dies if and only if there's more to human existence then the here and now.
 
So, would telepathy fit the bill? Precognition? The Near Death Experience and all it entails?
No, they would not, because the moment these are proven they are quantified which makes them part of the natural world. It's still unclear what the NDE actually is at this point in time..


I would say these would require a completely new set of physical laws.
If they require another set of physical laws why does that make them non material?

Also, in relation to quantum mechanics, in what way does particles appearing in two places at once, popping in and out of existence, switching from wave form to particle form depending on whether they are being observed or not, non local faster than light instantaneous communication between connected polarised particles, conform to a materialist explanation? (or physicalist or naturalist if you prefer)
It doesn't.
What makes them material/physical is they have been quantified or measured.
 
No, they would not, because the moment these are proven they are quantified which makes them part of the natural world. It's still unclear what the NDE actually is at this point in time..
Which is why else where it occurs to me that Naturalism is really not saying anything, and I allude to as much elsewhere. Its central premise is that all existing things and phenomena have natural causes. Anything super or para natural is so only by definition of the paradigm we ascribe to, which defines such things as either natural, or unatural, or supenatural (paranormal). Change the paradigm (in this case materialist reductionism), and you redifine the boundaries of the natural order. So arguments from naturalism, really get us nowhere. And yes, it is unclear what the NDE is fully, but it is clear what it is not. It is not a brain based hallucination, that is clear.

If they require another set of physical laws why does that make them non material?
I don't understand the question. Let me see if I get this. Are you asking me if acceptance of the reality of telepathy or precognition or the NDE occuring as something beyond the brain would require a reworking of our physical laws? Perhaps not. It would only require a reworking of the assumptions being made, and the paradigm under which these physical laws are funtioning. My statement was in response to someone elses assertion, and perhaps itself was hasty. I don't get what you mean by "why does it make them non material?"
I have to say, I am struggling with your line of reasoning here.

What makes them material/physical is they have been quantified or measured.
And here you totally miss my point. I was asking what about quantum wierdness allows the materialist to rest easily on his assumptions that matter is primary? And the assumption that all things in the universe are material things which obey material laws. Material laws suggest that one thing cannot be in two places at the same time. That matter exists independently of the observer. That no information can travel faster than the speed of light. That when you turn your back on the world, Things don't mysteriously turn into probability waves, and that when you return your attention, those waves return to discrete particles in space and time.
What you say above is true, the act of measuring or observing is what makes them physical yes, but as I said, when they are not being observed, they are not strictly physical. How much more fundamentally against the idea of matter being primary can you get, when we are forced to say, its very existence depends upon there being a conscious observer to collapse the probability waves into actual particles?
Do keep up ;)
 
No it can't, and the fact that you are asking me this question shows either you are deliberately not getting the meaning of what I say, or perhaps worse, non-deliberately.
When you say 'the behaviour of natural things has not obligation to conform', are you somehow making a weak appeal to naturalism? Correct me if I am wrong, but naturalism is the position that all existent things and phenomena come about through 'natural' causes, and that there can be no super or para natural explanation for these things? I agree. However, one must first realise that things are only thought of as 'super' natural in relation to the paradigm they clash with, in this case, materialism (or physicalism if you prefer).
I agree.

It is quite straightforward what I am saying. If an object were to disappear here and rematerialize ten miles away, this would be considered para normal or super natural, because of the prevailing materialist paradigm - even though this is what happens as a matter of course with quantum objects. The same goes for faster than light communication (non local), akin to telepathy. As I said, these phenomena, if they could be found in the 'natural' world, would need a completely new paradigm to accommodate them, as materialism doesn't. They have been found, clearly at the quantum level, and arguably at the macro human level.
Where have we found faster-than-light communication? But anyway, the things you mention are natural. All you've demonstrated is that the term materialist is obsolete. But we knew that.

So no, it is not a debate over terminologies. It is a question of dealing with the facts, and reassessing our position.
Sounds like a debate over terminology to me.

~~ Paul
 
Materialism doesn't adequately explain what we see, which is why the term died long ago. Now we use physicalism or naturalism.

Isn't that just playing games? I mean the two terms boil down to the same thing because both have the idea that consciousness - and everything that goes with it - is created by physical processes. Materialism (or whatever you prefer to call it) seems to hold on - at least among the general public - by hiding its radical heart. For example, it sells itself to the general public as common sense, concealing its downgrading of free will, or the conclusion that a sufficiently powerful computer would be conscious.

It seems to me that the argument for materialism really amounts to this:

Physics and sciences derived from it have explained a lot of things in the world.

The argument on the other side amounts to:

Yes, but in the process it has pushed aside more and more tricky questions (politicians over here refer to that tactic as kicking an issue into the long grass).

Picking and choosing which questions to answer is all very well, but if you use that tactic, it isn't logical to claim that you could in principle explain everything. Look back in science. There was a time when Newton's laws of motion were known, but electricity and magnetism wasn't understood at all. The physicists back then could claim that they could in principle explain everything if they avoided all the questions that they could not answer!

Physicists could make a decisive experimental contribution for a microscopic fraction of the cost of the LHC by taking some of the best attested ψ experiments, and testing them to exhaustion. That means doing their damnedest to demonstrate the effect - e.g. presentiment - as rigorously as possible. Obviously if they came out claiming the effect did not exist, it would be vital to explain in excruciating detail why it appeared to exist.

If you read Rupert Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion", you will read plenty of cases where science has fudged this question. For example, he describes in detail experiments to test if people satisfied the laws of thermodynamics. The experiment was done, and it was claimed that they did, but he discovered that in reality some subjects seemed to be a sink for energy, others seemed to create energy. This was simply covered up by choosing the subjects so as to balance out the averages! The variations from individual to individual were far greater than the standard errors in the experiment.

David
 
Isn't that just playing games? I mean the two terms boil down to the same thing because both have the idea that consciousness - and everything that goes with it - is created by physical processes. Materialism (or whatever you prefer to call it) seems to hold on - at least among the general public - by hiding its radical heart. For example, it sells itself to the general public as common sense, concealing its downgrading of free will, or the conclusion that a sufficiently powerful computer would be conscious.

It seems to me that the argument for materialism really amounts to this:

Physics and sciences derived from it have explained a lot of things in the world.

The argument on the other side amounts to:

Yes, but in the process it has pushed aside more and more tricky questions (politicians over here refer to that tactic as kicking an issue into the long grass).

Picking and choosing which questions to answer is all very well, but if you use that tactic, it isn't logical to claim that you could in principle explain everything. Look back in science. There was a time when Newton's laws of motion were known, but electricity and magnetism wasn't understood at all. The physicists back then could claim that they could in principle explain everything if they avoided all the questions that they could not answer!

Physicists could make a decisive experimental contribution for a microscopic fraction of the cost of the LHC by taking some of the best attested ψ experiments, and testing them to exhaustion. That means doing their damnedest to demonstrate the effect - e.g. presentiment - as rigorously as possible. Obviously if they came out claiming the effect did not exist, it would be vital to explain in excruciating detail why it appeared to exist.

If you read Rupert Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion", you will read plenty of cases where science has fudged this question. For example, he describes in detail experiments to test if people satisfied the laws of thermodynamics. The experiment was done, and it was claimed that they did, but he discovered that in reality some subjects seemed to be a sink for energy, others seemed to create energy. This was simply covered up by choosing the subjects so as to balance out the averages! The variations from individual to individual were far greater than the standard errors in the experiment.

David

Agree whole heartedly with all of the above, and you very nicely highlight the wriggling avoidance strategy of someone who really doesn't want to have to fully wrestle with the implications laid out by the highly evidential research.
Rather, they seem to want to split hairs, shift focus onto relative minutiae, and do anything to keep from really engaging with the awkward data.
Right behind you David. (especially as we share the same surname;))
 
Im
With the current climate around the skeptiko forums really heating up at the moment, I thought it would be interesting to ask how it is that those who feel materialism adequately explains all phenomena, have come to that conclusion.
In light of the topics raised on skeptiko, and the very sound research presented, surely we all must admit (some of us gladly, some unhappily), that materialism is started to sprout leaks. It is a sinking ship. In most areas of research, often scathingly reffered to as 'fringe' science, but one could also refer to them as 'frontier' science, or 'cutting edge' science, materialism is beggining to show itself for the failed proposition that I at least think it is.

In fact, quantum science has seriously alluded to this for almost a century, but for some reason, we have been able to sweep this dirty little secret under the carpet for too long.

I am left wondering how those who hold that materialism is an absolutely confirmed and unassailable position, can hold this opinion in light of the startling discoveries being made all the time. What would it take to falsify the materialist paradigm? And hasn't what it would take, already been found?

I'm guessing that there isn't anyone here who is a materialist, per your definition. I suspect most people here follow methodological naturalism, given the nature of their claims, even the anti-materialists.

To falsify methodological naturalism, we would have to find a way to demonstrate that we can't gain knowledge by reference to events and experiences. I'm not sure what this would look like. Most parapsychology claims are methodologically natural, for example, so they wouldn't be what we could look at.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is observed between two entangled quantum objects. No matter how far apart these objects are, in the next room, or in the next galaxy, what the experimenter does to one of these entagled protons, instantaneosly occurs in the other entangled proton.
This is a very reliable finding of quantum mechanics.
You are talking about quantum entanglement, AFAIK that does not allow for faster than light communication.
Can you point me to an experiment that shows superluminal communication?
i am certainly not a physicist but if that would be demonstrated, i think we would know about it from the awarded Nobel prize.
 
You are talking about quantum entanglement, AFAIK that does not allow for faster than light communication.
Can you point me to an experiment that shows superluminal communication?
i am certainly not a physicist but if that would be demonstrated, i think we would know about it from the awarded Nobel prize.

Well Bart,

what this well known fact shows is that information can travel faster than the speed of light. 'Classical' information cannot, (utilising radio waves, microwaves etc, basically traditional methods of information transfer), but quantum information does. This makes it entirely possible, and in fact incredibly probable that when quantum computing really gets under way, we will begin through technology to open the door to superluminal communication. It is already happening, but its just that we have not yet found a practical way to utilise it.
But in terms of pointing you to an experiment? this is unnecessary, however any experiment on quantum entanglement is essentially just that, showing and confirming the transfer of quantum information at instantaneous speeds - infinitely faster than anything you can imagine.
Quantum entanglement itself is confirmation of information travelling at faster than light speeds. In fact light speed in comparison is like a snail.
 
Isn't that just playing games? I mean the two terms boil down to the same thing because both have the idea that consciousness - and everything that goes with it - is created by physical processes. Materialism (or whatever you prefer to call it) seems to hold on - at least among the general public - by hiding its radical heart. For example, it sells itself to the general public as common sense, concealing its downgrading of free will, or the conclusion that a sufficiently powerful computer would be conscious.
Wow, I didn't know materialism had such an agenda.

If you want to say that the most important aspect of materialism/physicalism is that consciousness is physical, fine. That still doesn't explain what we really mean by physical. But what we certainly don't mean is the traditional definition of material.

It seems to me that the argument for materialism really amounts to this:
Physics and sciences derived from it have explained a lot of things in the world.
The argument on the other side amounts to:
Yes, but in the process it has pushed aside more and more tricky questions (politicians over here refer to that tactic as kicking an issue into the long grass).
I think you're putting an argument in the mouth of materialism that really belongs in the mouth of science. And then what you're doing is saying that science has ignored your favorite subject, when, in fact, the issue is probably that your favorite subject is incredibly complicated.

Picking and choosing which questions to answer is all very well, but if you use that tactic, it isn't logical to claim that you could in principle explain everything. Look back in science. There was a time when Newton's laws of motion were known, but electricity and magnetism wasn't understood at all. The physicists back then could claim that they could in principle explain everything if they avoided all the questions that they could not answer!
So you are talking about science. Notice that scientists did not avoid the questions of electricity and magnetism. They were just harder than motion.

Physicists could make a decisive experimental contribution for a microscopic fraction of the cost of the LHC by taking some of the best attested ? experiments, and testing them to exhaustion. That means doing their damnedest to demonstrate the effect - e.g. presentiment - as rigorously as possible. Obviously if they came out claiming the effect did not exist, it would be vital to explain in excruciating detail why it appeared to exist.
And scientists are doing that. Apparently you want more of them to do so, but, alas, that is not your decision.

If you read Rupert Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion", you will read plenty of cases where science has fudged this question. For example, he describes in detail experiments to test if people satisfied the laws of thermodynamics. The experiment was done, and it was claimed that they did, but he discovered that in reality some subjects seemed to be a sink for energy, others seemed to create energy. This was simply covered up by choosing the subjects so as to balance out the averages! The variations from individual to individual were far greater than the standard errors in the experiment.
David
Experiments to see if people satisfy the laws of thermodynamics? That sounds fascinating. Can you give a link?

Sheldrake is the perfect example of a scientist who ought to be spending every waking hour on experiments to demonstrate morphic resonance. Every second of his life. But instead, it appears as if he's bought into his own hypothesis so thoroughly that he's become uninterested in it. Call Sheldrake and tell him to "do his damnedest."

~~ Paul
 
what this well known fact shows is that information can travel faster than the speed of light. 'Classical' information cannot, (utilising radio waves, microwaves etc, basically traditional methods of information transfer), but quantum information does.
Could you please give a link to some site that claims that information can travel faster than light?

If you are talking about entanglement, it does not involve superluminal information transfer. Not in the entanglement process, and not in the collapse.

~~ Paul
 
And scientists are doing that. Apparently you want more of them to do so, but, alas, that is not your decision.
The point is, if they want to claim that phenomena such as precognition/presentiment doesn't exist, they should put in the work to show what is wrong with the various experiments.

Experiments to see if people satisfy the laws of thermodynamics? That sounds fascinating. Can you give a link?
Sheldrake quotes a number of experiments in chapter 2 of the science delusion. For a long time it was taken that energy conservation in humans had actually been tested. It then came to light that different subjects gave different results, and the subjects had been judiciously mixed to give the 'right' result. The latest work seems to be this, but it seems only partially accessible:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00599244#page-1

Sheldrake is the perfect example of a scientist who ought to be spending every waking hour on experiments to demonstrate morphic resonance. Every second of his life. But instead, it appears as if he's bought into his own hypothesis so thoroughly that he's become uninterested in it. Call Sheldrake and tell him to "do his damnedest."

~~ Paul
Yes, you have said this before! The guy is human - he wants to do a range of things!

David
 
Could you please give a link to some site that claims that information can travel faster than light?

If you are talking about entanglement, it does not involve superluminal information transfer. Not in the entanglement process, and not in the collapse.

Well, yes it does. Lets try a thought experiment. Lets say I am visiting the Sirius nebula, and you are here on earth. Each of us have with us an entangled quantum particle. Using the particle as a kind of binary information system, lets say spinning left equals 0 while spinning right equals 1, we suddenly have the makings of a type of morse quantum telegraph computer type thingy (highly technical term, don't get caught up in the lingo ;)).
If we use it to communicate, then rather than the god knows how many years it would take utilising 'classical' information transfer like radio waves, we would be communicating instantaneously. By definition, faster than light - instant.
The entangled particles you see can be said to outside space and time, hence the term 'non local'. So in one sense, it is not faster than speed of light, as it has no speed at all. It is beyond speed.
So, I think you can see categorically, by definition of quantum entanglement being possible, faster than light communication is also something built into our universe, though it is non physical in the sense of being beyond space and time.
 
Back
Top