Materialism and God

God and Consciousness - Beliefnet

Reality is anchored by a principle known as The Primacy of Existence; “Something that has objective existence in Reality exists independent of any observation.” This is quite obviously a materialistic notion and I also believe this idea is the key to most objections to Materialism. The wish that things having subjective existence could somehow be or become things having objective existence is one of the mantras of the “A-Materialist.”
exploringinside

J'C: "The only problem I have with materialism and the Primacy of Existence is, as I told Blü on a different thread, that it is boring. I have no interest at all in the subjective having an objective existence. I am quite happy with it being subjective. Art, music, fiction, myths, gods, and rituals all mean exactly nothing to the materialist since they admittedly exist only in the minds of those that can understand them. Each understanding of the subjective entity is subtly or grossly different, but people can agree on some of the important features of the entity. God may be supernatural, natural, imaginary, or a delusion in rare cases, but it is at the very least something that someone, lets call them a believer, finds to be important in their lives. One can argue all night that God has no material existence. (Not with me. I stipulate it in the first few seconds and everybody gets pissed. The materialists go off and rub the belly of the material Buddha, and the Buddhists go off in another corner to discuss the issue of non-material suffering. I go read a novel.) I find it much more interesting to find out why an intelligent, rational person can and does find God to be important in their lives."

A tree falls in the forest. Who cares whether or not the compression waves in the atmosphere qualify as noise or not. It just doesn't matter. I think this was ultimately my problem with Chemistry which was my boyhood choice of a career that lasted through my Sophomore year in college. I just couldn't get worked up about how a rocket went up. It was much more fun to deal with the absolutely subjective and political issues of getting someone to buy it so it could go up. If a car salesman thinks hesh is selling a material object, hesh had better find a job in a factory building cars. What heah is selling is prestige, practicality, social status, or political correctness. They all work to move the iron. Some of the worst salespeople are materialists, they try to sell the technology, the intercooler, and the V4. They might as well try to sell the frame. It does not work.

Material or immaterial mind?

The mythical "non-fundamentalist atheist":

Isn't the mind and brain the same thing?
Ephemerae_inc.

I would think that even a strict materialist would say no. Certainly an intricate series of neural firings supports what we think of as the mind, but the intricate feedback loop between the working of the mind and the neural actions which support and are affected by the working of the mind strongly suggest a separate conceptual entity. It certainly develops with the brain and ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function, no dualism here, but I find the mind to be a separate entity.

To an idealist, no - the brain (and all other matter) is an 'objectification' of mind which is non- material.
Clardan

To a realist ****waves hand and says "Teacher call on me!"**** both the material and the immaterial exist in reality. A rainbow exists only in the mind, damn the pedants who draw ray diagrams to show it is merely (sic) an optical phenomenon. The rock I stubbed my toe on was real and material, the pain was real and immaterial. I didn't imagine the pain.

No, the pain was not immaterial.
farragut

Yeah, it was just the firing of neurons telling the mind "Hey dipshit, you just fuckedup. Don't do it again.

Now, was the mind's response to that firing of neurons material?

Immaterial thoughts

Richard Dawkins' Fallacious Central Argument - Beliefnet Forums: "I diverge from the materialists in that I find credible evidence that thoughts and ideas are more than just electrical and chemical impulses in the brain, although those electrical and chemical impulses are necessary for the creation of the thought or idea. But there seems to be a resonance in the brain that we identify as a thought or idea. It would be analogous to a note played on a piano. It is identifiable as a piano note rather than a washtub base note because of the complex resonances in the piano that shape and color the note. True the hammer must strike the string to produce the resonances, but the vibration of the string is only the start of the sound of a piano note. Now that I think of it, the sound of a piano is is an immaterial, identifiable referent that is neither imaginary nor non-existent."

Is Palin's hate for atheists real?

Richard Dawkins' Fallacious Central Argument - Beliefnet Forums: "

But until someone tells us the objective test to distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary and the non-existent, we have no concept of what 'immaterial' might mean.

Which is really nobody's problem but yours. Most of us have a mind that is comfortable with unmeasurable concepts, and things we may not be able to demonstrate with objective tests. There is no objective test for emotional states, as an example, but the ability to recognize and deal with subtle differences in emotional states is critical to our survival as humans. Indeed critical to the survival of most higher animals.

Shall we not consider the emotional state of our neighbors just because Blü can't measure them? I don't know about you Kemo sabe but Palin appears to me to hate atheists. Perhaps we better do something even though we have no objective test to distinguish this hate from the imaginary or non-existent."